POE ET cee okt) rer Oh Oe? pemr ne ghetue eee ib ee th eer bed ah + Rat gupegibed 
tore ~ b ‘ i setetitap esse Tet tiabeavenpor? i Tasers ices Leattateetaets feees teri thleser ts. piibesivedtebneny sieleet Tis esti he "9 “ S ohana 

et aed . : ite aap sh Poitier i setidbesshisturulasse? : H fhejeed a fiatgspacs eithisetitete ba tua beg oe ApsaNsasuuakehJocandeess 

+ a res eka! £ oe 334 14 a4 fies {octe wen was re ie nee es ae hee 4 hee perseterstne 

a ae Gentat ahetn 3 ‘ak “! ebee By $4 ett tomy 


* 

a \ \ eakiohe 

Btsret te t elds 
ie 





3 
Hospers,. @Q. gu ae 4+ 
sVerelo, GS. A. (Gerrit | 


hs ~ « % 
Ae ave | > \ 
mMenarik), 
. (oe A OAL 
LOOG—L¥y4Y 


ceformed vrincinic f 
.SeLTOoOrmed Principle of 
mane nw 4 & ee 
AUTNOYrITYy: 


ie. | * 


LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
PRINCETON. N. J. 


PRESENTED BY 


a) i 6 H od de, KO Ye i= 


Fe 


rs 
Yj 


pe 
os , 
q f f 
Pind q 
f 


a 





Ree 
M Wee) 
<a 

va 
i 





THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE 
OF AUTHORITY 


The Scripture Principle of the Reformation 
Set forth in the Light of our Times 


BY ., 


GERRIT HENDRIK HOSPERS 


THE REFORMED PRESS 
GRAND RAPIDS, MICH. 
1924 


Copyright, 1924 
by 
Gerrit Hendrik Hospers 


In Reverent Memory of 
PROFESSOR NICHOLAS M. STEFFENS, D.D., LL.D. 
A Teacher of Large Scholarship and of Rare Powers 
of Discrimination, 
an Enthusiastic Expounder of the Reformed Faith, 
and withal a Devout Christian. 


THIS VOLUME IS AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED 
by his Grateful Pupil. 


_ Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from ; 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/reformedprincipl0OOhosp 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Page 
TEL OL UCLIOIE teen Mette co fae k wd JOR tres os ek Vit 
. A Page or Two from Church History ...... I 
. Modernism, a Fata Morgana in the Christian 
VP OL Cae pecuicas os. Soe One Rae Pern es aay 15 
Be UteeEerincipies OL uvuthOrity. 9.0 sues scene 30 
. Divine Origin and Unique Character of the 
ELON WR OLIDLUTESAA sto tt canny, ape 8 aa 58 
. A Concrete Example of Modernist Theology... 77 
mrineseriticism.of the ocriptures 7) 2 90 ee 92. 
Pelhe Doctrine sof AnisplratOn es, oc ccs 4 auc: 108 
. Creeds and Standards: Their Significance 
Ai e UDCLL OIG aca tes ene ea rae ort 128 
Penreotics tandardsaViedieval® (£0 ac 848 tents 148 
mebheasermon. Olathe QVlOuNt ts te eis vn oe 175 
BO Nitint MISC icishiait yt usm eres ern tua 193 
. The Ministry of the Divine Word ......... 210 


. The Program of Reformed Churches ....... 228 





INTRODUCTION 


We live in a time in which opinion in regard to 
Christianity and its grounds is unsettled. It is asked, 
What really is Christianity? Whence is it derived? How 
is it apprehended? When the appeal is made to reality, 
it is often so formulated as to put a premium upon doubt. 
An objective ground — the very best of all —is largely 
wanting. Instead of looking for this we are bidden by 
the prophets of the new age to trust the eternal issues 
of the soul upon what is quite subjective and variable 
as the winds and the waves of the sea. 

It would be an immense relief to many people if they 
could get a clear view of the principles which dominate 
our construction of Scripture, its relation to us and our 
relation to it. We will not get anywhere unless we pro- 
ceed from bed-rock principle. As we shall explain more 
particularly in our Third Chapter, every variety of view 
can be subsumed under three principles, each generic 
and exhaustive; there can be no more. All varieties and 
shades can be led back to one of these three. As soon 
therefore as we are satisfied with what we may believe 
to be the correct one, we shall at once have clear sailing. 
In the dispute, for instance, concerning the Virgin 
Birth, large numbers are shaken in their confession of 
it because the matter is so generally argued from the 
historico-critical standpoint, that is, from the rationalistic 
principle: this very easily casts doubt upon the doctrine. 
However, as soon as we maintain the authority of the 
Word of God in its entirety, the matter is made out in 
quick order. Every doctrine of the Word stands on 
insecure footing if it is determined from subjective 

Vi1l 


INTRODUCTION 


considerations: it is apt to rob us even of our Christ- 
ianity . What such people still believe will be held in spite 
‘of their principle. This is of course illogical and 
unsatisfactory, and has done much harm. 

The course of the argument of this book is this: After 
some historical preliminaries in the first two chapters, 
_ the third treats of the principles of authority; and the 
truth and satisfactory character of the Reformed 
principle is shown. Thence we conclude to the Divine 
Origin and unique character of the Scriptures (IV). 
How unsatisfactory the rationalistic principle works out 
is shown in a concrete example (V). That Holy 
Scripture is literature of a class all by itself, and cannot 
be criticized with a view of arriving at its internal 
character on penalty of denying its authority (VI). 
Since however Scripture was written with the concur- 
rent human agency, a theory of Inspiration must be held 
which best comports with the situation (VII). This 
wonder-work of the Holy Spirit is such a complex 
‘organism that it presents an immense range of material 
which needs to be gathered, analyzed and assimilated, 
whence the Church has found it necessary to construct 
its compendia thereof called the Creeds (VIII). These 
Creeds and Confessions being the carefully considered 
and oft tested fruit of the best thought of the ages have 
an enduring value (IX). Why the Sermon on _ the 
Mount cannot be the Creed nor the program of Christ- 
ianity (X). What then is Christianity? (XI). Finally, 
the high character of the Reformed principle of 
authority as it constrains to a high view of Scripture 
also sets a high demand upon the man who preaches it, 
making him a Minister of the Divine Word (XII). 

The issues are such — and in our day they have been 
sharply drawn — that some choice must be made. Hence 

Vill 


INTRODUCTION 


all this controversy. Now controversy is undesirable, 
but sometimes it cannot be avoided. It must be remem- 
bered that controversies would never have obtained 
except for the entrance of the Old Serpent, when he 
instilled the seeds of doubt and rebellion into the 
happiness of peaceful Eden. Since that time Jehovah 
has ever had a controversy with man. “God is a God 
of Peace”; but when His authority is invaded, and when 
error and rebellion raise their horrid heads then 
“Jehovah is a man of war’. Under similar circum- 
stances all those who love His cause will be obliged, as 
necessity arises, to do valiant service for Him and quit 
themselves like men. 

There obtains considerable misunderstanding and 
misapprehension as to the meaning of Christian love and 
forbearance, of meekness and the like. They refer to 
agreeable things in the Divine attributes which must be 
reflected in His children. But likewise as we read of 
righteousness, justice, truth, abhorrence of sin, etc., in 
the virtues of the Godhead, these too must have a place 
in the character of believers, who, however, must see 
to it that their sinful perversions do not mar and 
transform their glory. The Divine exhibition of love and 
forbearance have a temporary and relative office in as 
far as they operate in harmony with His wisdom in the 
course of His providence: they are not absolute in their 
application. Thus Jesus was in deed the Prince of Peace ; 
but he said: “Think not that I came to send peace on the 
earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword’ (Matt. 
10:34). Jesus called the weary and heavy laden lovingly 
unto himself, but he also denounced the Scribes and 
Pharisees in unsparing terms. And while today we 
preach the Gospel of the love of God, there is also often 
occasion to handle desperate situations without gloves. 


1X 


INTRODUCTION 


Far too often is God represented in the preaching of our 
times as a God without character, a great Goody-goody, 
who cannot be provoked and will, after all, eventually 
admit every one to his heaven. 

It should be plain therefore that pacifism in any form 
is contrary to common sense and to Scripture. In both 
civil and ecclesiastical relations there is large room for 
forbearance and meekness; but evil is a desperate thing: 
it will avail itself of its opportunities whenever it can do 
so, and will love nothing better than to see the Christian 
resting upon his arms. We have to be very careful 
about our application of the language of Matthew 
5 :38-42. This passage does not exhibit a rule of absolute 
conduct: it merely indicates a disposition of heart which 
is relative, and to be followed according to good judg- 
ment. Its application therefore is limited: error and sin 
cannot always be overcome with forbearance. Our Lord 
and His Apostles did not always follow this rule; and it 
will be notably set aside when the Prince of Peace shall 
come in flaming fire to execute judgment upon his 
’ enemies. 

The reason of the present controversy is not that the 
orthodox have picked a quarrel with the Modernists, 
spoiling for a fight. On the contrary, it is Modernism 
which has invaded the domain of the orthodox. They 
themselves say that they bring the new; and they aim to 
supplant the old, the out-worn. They come with the 
superior article, and the orthodox are obscurantists, the 
left-overs, etc. And the general public which has not 
been trained to fully grasp the issues involved, defer to 
men of culture and science, all the more as they come with 
noisy insistence of their up-to-date-ness. If now the 
orthodox say nothing and show meekness and_for- 
bearance, the issue will never be in doubt. And what 

x. 


INTRODUCTION 


hurts the orthodox the most is the pretence to a specially 
high brand of ethics which the Modernist claims, and 
then to notice the devious way in which they urge their 
views. So much is done directly at variance with the 
most solemn vows and obligations of the Church, of 
disobedience against church deliverances, against com- 
mon propriety and order! One becomes exceedingly 
nettled when all this is paraded under the name of 
Christian forbearance. I have repeatedly been struck 
with the vagueness of statement, the subterfuge, the 
ignoring of pointed fact and argument, the arrogant 
dogmatism of those sweet-tempered Modernists towards 
_ those who still hold to an “antique theology’. 

And how Unitarians agree with us in our estimate of 
the situation will appear from a proclamation of twenty- 
seven of their ministers headed by ex-President Eliot: 
“With all courtesy and consideration let us make it plain 
that religious teachers who play with words in the most 
solemn relations of life, who make their creeds mean 
what they were not originally intended to mean, or 
mentally reject a formula of belief while outwardly 
respecting it, cannot expect to retain the allegiance of 
men who are accustomed to straight thinking and square 
dealing.”’ | 

Invaded as they are in their own rightful domain, and 
that in a manner whose honesty does not commend itself 
even to the world, we ask once more, are not the ortho- 
dox justified in repelling the invasion? Can they trust 
any sweet reasonablenes in their opponents? Or is there 
sense and reason in the idea that all will come right of 
itself? Does that not smack of fatalism? It is our duty 
as reasonable beings to make use of our powers as the 
occasion arises, and do so with firmness and in the fear 
of God. To anticipate our second chapter, Dr. Kuyper 


x1 


INTRODUCTION 


quotes with great admiration the break between the 
great English statesmen, Burke and Fox, on the score 
of a great principle. Says Kuyper: “Burke did not 
hesitate at once and openly to break with Fox; and 
although the latter burst out in tears, and besought his 
friend not to sunder the ties which had bound them for 
thirty years, Burke remained immoveable, inexorable. 
Since principles were involved, he would not listen to 
accommodation. He said: ‘I know the value of my line 
of conduct; I have indeed made a great sacrifice; I have 
done my duty though I have lost a friend.’ In this 
resolute act and virile language there is something which 
captivates any man of character, for as soon as principles 
which conflict with your deepest convictions gain 
ground, controversy becomes a duty, peace becomes sin- 
ful, and you are obliged to denounce such pernicious 
principles, and brand them with the mark of infamy.” 
As to the pity of it all, Burke also used these telling 
words: “Such is now the misfortune of our age, that 
everything is to be discussed, as if the truth of religion 
were to be always a subject rather of altercation than 
enjoyment.”’ 

Prof. Rutgers of Amsterdam has said: “Ecclesiastical 
controversy is unavoidable when a principle has found 
entrance into the church which is foreign to her and 
threatens her life. A vigorous resistance of her own 
life-principle cannot remain away.” 

Orthodoxy is not yet dead. Any son of the Reforma- 
tion who is worth anything must speak out. We despise 
that characterless supineness which allows everything to 
drift along, while the enemy is having all his way. In 
fear of God, as we believe in the Reformed principle of 
authority, which alone will keep the Scripture in our 
possession with the light of its teachings, we must assert 


MT 


INTRODUCTION 


ourselves if we would be truly loyal to our God, to His 
Christ, to His Word. Doing so we stand in-our own 
right and simply repel the intruder. And while we do 
so vigorously, we do so in love. When men talk very 
earnestly, it is only the superficial character which 
makes remarks about suspecting rancor. In the stren- 
uousness of battle earnest men first think of their cause, 
and will attend to the amenities of life after the contest 
is over. 

Strong issues forced to their logical conclusion may 
bring on even more unpleasant things than folks usually 
regard as such. A loyal church may have to resort to 
forcible measures to eject an intruder. People deprecate 
“heresy trials’, largely due to skilful manipulation of 
public sentiment industriously fostered by the very class 
which would suffer from them. “But there are worse 
things than heresy trials, and one of them is a state of 
servile acquiescence in open disloyalty to Jesus Christ. 
Under the guise of progress and in liberty of expression 
it is an easy matter to give the name of “heresy hunter” 
to those who take a stand for the faith; but men of 
conviction dare not hesitate for a moment when they 
feel that the honor of Christ is involved; and they will 
not forget that it was Christ himself who said, ‘Beware 
when all men shall speak well of you” (C. E. Macart- 
ney). 

An episode from the book of Judges is full of 
instruction and warning in our situation. Meroz was a 
town in northern Palestine near the scene of the military 
operations which resulted in the defeat of Jabin. Meroz 
had full cognizance of everything that was going on. The 
war concerned the freedom of the people of Jehovah, 
the honor of Jehovah Himself. What was said of its 
inhabitants ? 


Xill 


INTRODUCTION 


“Curse ye Meroz, said the Angel of Jehovah. 
Curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof: 
Because they came not to the help of Jehovah, 
To the help of Jehovah against the mighty” 
(Judges 5:23). 


Why all this? “Had the people of Meroz taken up arms 
against Jehovah? No. Had they gone over to the enemy 
and fought against the chosen people? No. What then 
had they done? Nothing! Their neutrality was their 
crime” (Newton). “To refuse aid to the sacred cause 
until it was certain of success, was in a man or communi- 
ty belonging to the covenanted nation an act of virtual 
apostasy; and Meroz was not merely politically dis- 
franchised, it was religiously excommunicated” (Liddon). 

The men of Meroz may have had their “reasons”. 
They may have believed in pacifism; they may have had 
special excuses. But whatever these might be, they had 
opportunity to render particular and important service 
to the Lord’s cause, and this they neglected! A curse? 
As harsh-as that? Let us not cavil about the terms: it 
is enough to court the displeasure of the Lord. And who 
is 1t that pronounces the curse? Not Deborah. ‘Curse 
ye Meroz, said the Angel of Jehovah!’ This is none 
other than the Covenant Angel, the Lord Jesus Christ 
in his pre-incarnate state. 

What are our present circumstances? Today the 
Church is in danger of many a Jabin who threatens to 
knuckle under our liberties in the gospel. Worldliness 
and sinful habits largely prevail. Indifference and 
ignorance of the truth are twin evils. It is on this that 
the false prophets of our time thrive. They pooh-pooh 
the warnings of the prophets of the Lord. God’s Word 
is being attacked with reasons so specious that the 
common people readily believe it. Religiously things are 


Xiv 


INTRODUCTION 


in a demoralized condition. The blood atonement ts 
held up to ridicule. Salvation through the cross is not 
the real thing: it is character which after all avails with 
God. There is slight need of going to the heathen to 
preach the gospel: they have about as much themselves 
if they will only resolutely bestir themselves to live up. 
to high ideals. If Christianity only becomes a social 
power its real purpose is attained. Such ideas have a 
great vogue today. 

The Scripture principle of the Reformation puts quite 
a different face upon the situation, and this must be 
honestly faced and obeyed if we shall stand the severe 
scrutiny of our Lord. And let no minister of Lord 
think that it is enough merely to be “evangelical”? whilst 
neglecting to take strong position in the impregnable 
rock of Scripture. What boots your gospel preaching 
when the Jabin of rationalism stalks around who event- 
ually will cut from under our feet the very thing on the 
ground of which you can at all present the compelling 
claims of Christ upon the heart? 

The late Dr. Jowett has well said: ‘‘But it is possible 
so to contend even for central things as to lose the sense 
of relation and proportion; and by the manner of our 
controversy we may lose the clear sight of the supreme 
values. The first necessity of all vital and tenacious 
hold upon the evangelical verities and of fruitful 
ministry in them is the spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ.” 
It is very true that we must in every circumstance of 
life seek to manifest the spirit of Christ, even when 
brethren must be resisted to the face. But it is also a 
sad thing that irenical natures are apt to do very little 
in the way of such positive activity as will in times of 
danger be necessary to clinch a hold upon eternal 
verities. Attitudes of definite hostility to the truth must 

XV 


INTRODUCTION 


be met by as definite an attitude from the other side and 
vigorously followed up. Love and loyalty can go hand 
in hand in the cause of the Master. 

It is high time that we gain a clear view of the 
foundations of our faith; that we resolutely profess it 
and live up to our undoubted beliefs, which is very 
necessary today on account of the positive and deter- 
mined activities of error to spread its cause. 


In order to avoid the slightest possibility of giving 
offense, it may not be amiss to remind the reader that 
the term ‘Reformed’ is intended to be used in that wide 
latitude of meaning which makes it very nearly 
synonymous with the term ‘Protestant’. In referring to 
the current controversy in the Presbyterian Church and 
in applying his comment, the author may sometimes have 
had the distinctive character of this class of Churches 
in mind; but this should not be interpreted as meaning 
that Reformed or Presbyterian Churches with that 
particular name should have a monopoly of the great 
principle which underlies the use of Scripture as our 
sole principle of authority. Indeed, at least as they were 
originally constituted, Baptist Churches, Methodist, 
Congregational and ever so many more, stand on the 
same principle. 


Ontario, New York, March 28, 1924. 


xVi 


CHAPTER I 
A PAGE OR TWO FROM CHURCH HISTORY 


It fills one with amazement that so many Ministers 
of the Divine Word, sons of the Reformation, should so 
quickly have been carried away from their moorings, 
to venture upon a sea which had already offered its 
dangers and counts an untold number of shipwrecks. 
They have been deceived by fair appearances. Men of 
learning (and piety) have had dangled before their eyes 
a gold-brick which has been offered as being 24 carets 
fine. In an evil hour the Divine truth has _ been 
exchanged for something which appeared to be a 
superior article, and which, alas, is being retained with 
firmest grip, although strong warnings against deception 
hhave gone forth. As the honor of God and His Word 
and eternal issues are so closely connected with the 
matter, it is exceedingly necessary that the situation be 
examined with scrupulous care and earnest purpose. 

Just now an endless number of books are isuing from 
the press in praise of the so-called “new Bible’. It was 
never understood before, they say. Its beauty is now 
seen in the advanced and enlightened interpretation of 
this new age of progress. This Bible will be read as 
never before, and religious ignorance will be speedily 
dissipated, we are told.. However, we stand before a 
terrible alternative. If the promise of the Modernist is 
correct, we surely cannot have too much of. such litera- 
ture. But if the Reformed view of the Bible is correct, 
the largest part of this modern learning is but cultured 

I 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


rubbish, and subversive of the real interests of the soul 
and the Kingdom of God. 

In the erstwhile Republic of the United Netherlands 
the province of Holland (now divided into North and 
South Holland) was the fairest and the richest. With 
Zeeland she stood in the front ranks in the mighty 
contest with Spain for. civic and religious liberty. 
Naarden and Haarlem had offered strong resistance to 
the disciplined troops of the mightiest military power of 
Europe, but these cities were obliged, after a heroic 
resistance, to surrender to the foe, trusting its promise 
of leniency, only to be butchered in a horrible manner 
forthwith. Leyden having learned the double lesson 
determined to hold out to the last, and would rather 
capitulate to King Famine than to the Most Christian 
King of Europe. A kind Providence saved the devoted 
city, and as a reward for her gallantry, rather than 
be excused from the payment of taxes or the like, 
she chose the offer of the government to become the 
seat of a University. And Leyden did become a seat of 
learning famous for a long time in all Europe. Founded 
as it was under the influence of the principles of the 
Reformation, the instruction in all of its faculties was 
given in accordance with such principles. The famous 
Boerhaave, great as a man and as a Christian, first took 
a course of theology in this University, then of medi- 
cine; and, having practiced his profession with such 
success that all the world knew about him, he also became 
a professor in the medical faculty of his alma mater. 
In theology, too, many men of eminence, commencing 
with Franciscus Junius, here taught. In an evil hour 
Arminius appeared, the authorities being hardly aware 
ef the danger which was lurking in his appointment. 
But in course of time, even more evil influences have 

a 


A PAGE OR TWO FROM CHURCH HISTORY 


managed to secure a foothold; and from this strongest 
citadel of orthodoxy, as it was founded, has gone forth 
streams of influence destructive of true Christianity. 
Rationalism and Liberalism in various forms and shades 
have there made their appearance. Here taught in these 
later times Prof. Kuenen, of Wellhausen-and-Kuenen 
fame, leaders in modern Higher Criticism. Shortly after 
the middle of the nineteenth century a school appeared 
which took as its specific name that of ““Modernism’’, a 
somewhat different variety of view of which so much 
is being said in our day. The type in The Netherlands 
is more pronounced in its negations, whilst that in 
America, due to the strong evangelical current which 
has characterized our religious thought, is minded to 
hold to that type of belief, though admitting wide 
latitude of interpretation. 

But this is the main point we wish to bring out, 
namely, that North Holland, and Leyden, at first so 
highly favored, the stronghold of orthodoxy and a moral 
and spiritual power in the land, on their relapse into 
these degrees of Liberalism, have lost their crown of 
glory and have contributed very little to the real spiritual 
upbuilding of The Netherlands. Their theology also 
colored their politics, so that the dominant party for a 
long term of years, the party of comparative unbelief, 
and calling itself by that very name, the ‘Liberal’ party, 
has not contributed to the moral strength of the land. 
When in the fall of 1918 an attempt was made at 
revolution and to hoist the red-flag, and for some days 
the issue hung in the balance, the Liberal party was not 
- the power to stem the tide. The situation was saved by 
the firmness of the parties of the Right, the Anti- 
revolutionary (orthodox-Reformed) and the Catholic 
parties. Anti-revolutionary troops from Friesland and 


3 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


Roman Catholic troops from Limburg saved the day in 
The Hague. Dr. Kuyper, at that time in retirement, an ~ 
old man of 81 and an invalid, had been advised by 
friends to flee in the night for which arrangements had 
been made. But he replied: “I will not forsake my post: 
I am in God’s hand!” This great leader of his party, and, 
under God, the means to restore a vigorous Reformed 
theology with its spiritual power once more to The 
Netherlands, knew not what fear was, and stood like the 
Reformed of old, firm as a rock, and with a heart as 
tender and as appreciative as the humblest of God’s 
children. On the evening of the day on which the issue 
reached a decision these Anti-revolutionary troops from 
Friesland proceeded to the residence of the ex-Prime 
Minister singing patriotic songs as they marched along 
and ranged themselves in front of his house. In the cold 
November evening he appeared before them, and 
refusing to cover his head, he would honor these faithful 
troops who had learned from him their devotion to true 
liberty, and from him had stood for the authority of the 
Divine ordinances. In his address he told them, ‘with 
profound emotion, how good it was to see them, and to 
hear their patriotic songs. He continued: ‘What an 
unlooked for consolation God has vouchsafed me in the 
evening of my life because of this occasion. The prin- 
ciples for which I have contended all my life, are also 
embraced by you. But it is one thing to confess a belief, 
and it is quite another matter to be ready to give one’s 
life for it, if God should so please. And behold, that you 
have done, men! It is this for which I thank my God 
from the bottom of my heart, as I also thank you for 
your great courtesy to me in coming here. When matters 
came to a crisis, when our country was in danger, when 
the throne of our beloved Queen became insecure — it 
4 


A PAGE OR TWO FROM CHURCH HISTORY 


was then that you did not hesitate a moment, but you 
have come up to your duty as one man, ready to give 
your all in a holy enthusiasm for the cause to which you 
have pledged your hearts. My time is wellnigh spent: 
in your hand lies the future. But this I have felt, and I 
thank you for it, that your coming to this city and your 
singing in front of my residence are an indication to me 
from my God that when He shall have called me home, 
the principles, which are above everything precious to 
me, will remain operative in the coming generation as 
they have produced their good offices in your case.” 
He then asked the soldiers to sing his favorite verse 
from the Psalms (the 89th Psalm and the seventh verse, 
Dutch metrical Version), of which the following is a 
translation as nearly as possible in meter and thought: 


“How blest the people are that know the joyful sound! | 
They walk, o Lord, by light which with Thee doth abound. 
They’re all the day rejoicing in Thy Name most blesséd: 

Thy goodness cheers; Thy might supports them when distresséd. 
Thy faithfulness shall ne’er permit their trust to waver, 
But in Thy righteousness they’re raised on high to favor.” 


The: stately choral music to which the words are sung 
resounded strong and solemn in the stillness of the night. 
Less than two years afterwards the same words and 
music were sung in the cemetery as they laid the body of 
the great man in his tomb. 

This gives occasion to speak somewhat in detail 
concerning this man of God whose life and labors have 
meant far more to Reformed theology than men are 
aware of. He should be known in America far more 
than he is. The comparative obscurity is due, no doubt, 
to residence in a small country and to a language which, 
unlike the German, has not been acquired by American 

© 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


scholars. However small, though, Holland is, it has 
furnished some great names such as Erasmus, Grotius, 
Voetius, Boerhaave, Van Oosterzee, not to mention 
painters and poets, scientists and statesmen. And how 
often it has been pointed out that Pilgrim and Puritan 
and Knickerbocker have learned and brought from 
thence the ideas which have laid the foundations of our 
free institutions and made America great. And in the 
Revolutionary War Holland considerably aided the 
infant Republic incurring the wrath of Great Britain. 
Abraham Kuyper was born on Oct. 29, 1837, at 
Maassluis, and died in The Hague on Nov. 8, 1920. He 
studied in the strongly liberal University of Leyden 
under Professors Scholten, Kuenen and others. He 
gained his doctorate, and a gold medal, on his disserta- 
tion on John a Lasco, which was quite a feat on account 
of his discovery of documents which were supposed to 
be inaccessible. When he left the University to take 
charge of the church at Beesd, he went there with 
advanced liberal ideas. In this field he at once came in 
contact with plain people and of decidedly orthodox 
persuasion. He wrote of them: “They did not know of 
trimming or temporizing, and soon the painful choice 
began to force itself upon me of assuming a position of 
sharp antagonism, or of availing myself, as they 
expressed it, of the ‘fulness of sovereign grace’, without 
leaving me the least room of escape from the dilemma. 
As a matter of fact, I did not assume the attitude of 
Opposition, and even now I thank my God for that 
choice. Their tenacious persistence has become a blessing 
to my heart, the rising of the morning-star in my life. 
I did not come to them with some sense of the reality of 
spiritual things, but I had not yet found the Word of 
reconciliation. It is this that they brought to me. Indeed, 
6 


A PAGE OR TWO FROM CHURCH HISTORY 


they brought it to me in defective language, but never- 
theless in that absolute form in which alone my soul 
could find rest — in the worship and adoration of a God 
who works all things, both to will and to work his good 
pleasure.”’ 

One of the members of this church of Beesd was Miss 
Pietronella Baltus. Familiarly she is called Pietje 
(pronounced Peet-yeh) Baltus. When Dr. Kuyper, in 
1863, became pastor of this church, he soon met this 
woman, then thirty-three years of age, in his regular 
_pastoral visitation (called ‘huisbezoek’) — visits always 
involving inquiry into one’s spiritual welfare. On her 
very first ‘huisbezoek’ Miss Baltus raised objection 
against the character of her pastor’s preaching, and she 
proceeded to admonish him on the necessity of /is con- 
version, of taking refuge in the blood of the atonement, 
appropriated through justifying faith. Of course, they 
had a great conversation. On leaving, Dr. Kuyper was 
about to shake hands with her, but she refused as a 
protest to his spiritual character. However, Dr. Kuyper 
did not cease begging her to do so, and she acceded with 
the understanding that she would shake hands on the 
strength of common civility. It was a matter of great 
significance that she dared thus to treat her pastor, as 
she was but the daughter of a day-laborer, and in 
Holland the minister was held in uncommon high honor. 
Dr. Kuyper did not wait long ere he returned, once and 
again, talking with her on the things of the Spirit, and 
he came more and more under the influence of the 
Reformed persuasion of a strict dependence upon God. 
Characteristic of this woman was her positiveness. She 
insisted on a confession of faith of full compass such as 
our martyrs died for. These conversations had this great 
effect upon Dr. Kuyper that through them he grasped, 


aoe 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


as he says, “the power of the absolute, and broke with 
all hybridism and halfness’’.* 

Another matter that contributed to the changed life 
and views of Dr. Kuyper, was his reading of Miss 
Yonge’s “The Heir of Redclyffe’. He wrote of it to a 
bosom friend: “My memory speaks of an English novel 
which for me ranks next to my Bible, I do not say in 
value but in its meaning for my life. That masterpiece 
has been the means of breaking my _ self-sufficient 
rebellious heart.”” The scene which touched Kuyper’s 
heart is that at the death-bed of Guy. The haughty 
Philip had been humbled and his language of self- 
judgment was felt by Kuyper to be applicable to himself. 
When Philip refused to enter the room to take part in 
the Holy Communion with his dying cousin, because 
Philip felt himself too unworthy for utterance, this 
text spoken to him, encouraged him: “A broken and a 
contrite heart, o God, thou wilt not despise”. “This was 
a balm which quieted his grief, and Philip arose and 
went in, and knelt besides Amabel at Guy’s deathbed.” 
“Then,” so Kuyper continues, “(I was alone), I felt the 
scene overpowering me. I read that Philip wept, and, 
dear brother, [the account is written to a friend] my 
own eyes filled with tears. I read that Philip kneeled; 
and before I knew it, I myself lay before my chair and 


* It may interest the reader to know that Miss Baltus 
followed the career of Dr. Kuyper with great interest, acknowl- 
edging him as a child of God and reading his papers with delight, 
but not always agreeing with his politics. She died in 1914 at 
the age of 84 years. The editor of one of the foremost dailies, 
De Standaard, in an editorial commenting on her death, was not 
ashamed to proclaim that it was this woman in particular who 
had been the means in God’s hand to bring him to the faith. 
This editor was none other than Dr. A. Kuyper, foremost 
theologian in The Netherlands, the leader of his party, and 
erstwhile for four years Prime Minister of the Kingdom. ~~ 


8 


A PAGE OR TWO FROM CHURCH HISTORY 


had folded my hands. Oh, what I have passed through 
in those moments in my soul, I have not fully learned to 
understand till later; however, from that hour I have 
abhorred what I admired before, I have sought what I 
previously had dared look down upon.” 

Dr. Kuyper left Beesd after a ministry of four years, 
a changed man. In his farewell sermon he spoke in part 
such noble words as these: ‘“The spirit of this age robbed 
me for a time of the faith of my childhood....... I 
was carried away with a view which in its last analysis 
is hostile to the gospel of grace just as long as religion 
was to me a matter of secondary import......... I 
doted on this just as long as my heart was unaware of 
its need of the gospel, just as long as the pure doctrine 
of the fathers was known to me only in the distorted 
representation of its opposers or in the slanderous ex- 
tremes of narrow-minded devotees. But when hunger 
arose with its cry for bread, when life became serious, 
and certain experiences, which are too delicate and holy 
to mention here, dissipated the levity of worldly views, 
oh, sirs, I then felt in all its crying depths how poor, 
how empty, how despoiled and comfortless this pre- 
tended new religion of our age had left me...... My 
baptism of doubt gave me the firsthand knowledge of a 
personal experience, and developed in my soul a strong 
aversion to a view which appeared to me thoroughly 
false in its principles, and I have accepted the foolishness 
of the Cross as the highest and only wisdom...... 
These four years in your midst have been rich in my 
development, and all unconsciously, no doubt, many.a 
one in your midst has contributed to bring this about.” 

His spiritual experiences led Kuyper to a painstaking 
study of the great writers of the Reformation. He had 
formerly indeed looked into them for historical purposes, 

9 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


but his convictions then were squarely against them, and 
he did not catch their spirit. “In the estimation of the 
learned in the University of Leyden the purchase of 
books of the Reformed theologians would have been 
considered a sheer waste of money. But now Kuyper 
saw his deficiency and his need cried out for such works 
as would indeed open the Scriptures. The works of 
Martensen, Nitzsch, Lange, Vinet, etc., were useful, but 
they did not satisfy the deeper need. But when he came 
down to Calvin, he struck bed-rock foundations, which, 
making an end to doubt, furnished that upon which the 
theological building could be reared in strict compliance 
with the requirements of the situation, and with the 
surprising result that the strictest ethics were of one 
piece with it. And so it appeared that these unsophisti- 
cated farmers of Gelderland had been telling him the 
very same things that Kuyper was reading in the 
scholarly Latin of Calvin. The great Reformer had 
taught in such a manner, that centuries after his death, 
these plain farmers, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, had 
comprehended him.” (Winckel). 

Kuyper always maintained that the great writers of 
the period of the Reformation (and soon after) present 
the truth of Scripture in so clear a form because they 
taught in obedience to their principle, and so have 
elicited the astonishment of the careful investigator. 
Much of what has been given later, in a more enlightened 
form, as is claimed, even among the best, shows traces 
of degeneration. The object therefore of Kuyper was 
to pay strict attention to the principles which had given 
such surprising insight to the earliest theologians and 
which should be consistently carried out to the present 
day. He corrected much that was off-color in the 
Reformed theology in the Netherlands, and no one need 

IO 


A PAGE OR TWO FROM CHURCH HISTORY 


take it ill when we dare assert that we in America still 
have to learn in the same direction, particularly in a 
time when we are waging the war of our existence as 
Reformed people against the onslaughts of Modernism. 

Dr. Kuyper became pastor in the churches of Utrecht 
and Amsterdam for only a few years when his numerous 
other duties constrained him to devote all his time and 
talents to these. 

In Dec. 1877 he issued the first number of De Heraut, 
a religious weekly, in which he was free to develop and 
advocate his views. This weekly was edited with great 
skill. Half of it contained matter from his own pen. 
Leading articles on doctrinal subjects in serial form 
became the solid instruction of thousands of laymen in 
Reformed theology. His spirited short editorials are a 
marvel of apposite and incisive remark on current events 
ever adding strength to his cause. 

Since it had for a long time been difficult to procure 
a sufficient supply of orthodox ministers because of the 
dominant Liberalism of the Universities, Dr. Kuyper 
conceived the idea of founding a new University. This 
could be a matter of faith only, since state funds could 
not be forthcoming; besides, as was expected, strong 
opposition would develop in admitting such graduates 
to churches in the Establishment. Which indeed proved 
to become the case. On Oct. 20, 1880, the Free Univer- 
sity of Amsterdam was opened with five professors. Dr. 
Kuyper being one of them, and giving instruction in 
Dogmatics and Hebrew. The scholastic requirements 
were of the strictest. Numerous young men have taken 
the course for the degree of Doctor of Divinity accord- 
ing to all the severe methods of the other Universities. 
They have given dissertations which testify of genuine 
learning. Dr Kuyper insisted that Reformed Theology 


II 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


should be taught with strictest regard to all scientific 
Tequirements, as, being the truth of God, it could stand 
this far better than any other. He was not an obscuran- 
tist, nor a narrow-mined bigot without perception of 
the realities of life, but he believed in the Divine 
Revelation, he saw its glory and its beauty, he under- 
stood the organic unity of the whole. He felt that man 
can well afford to submit to the wisdom of God and that 
for man to substitute his petty private views and insights 
is but darkening counsel and taking issue with the Most 
High. 

It is a great pity that Dr. Kuyper has not leit us a 
Dogmatic Theology of his own. All we have are the five 
large volumes called his ‘‘Dictaten Dogmatiek’’, his 
lectures as taken down by his students. In the introduc- 
tion to this work, written by himself, he praises his 
students for what they made of it, though he must admit 
that some parts were inferior to others. 

Be that as it may, there is another work of his hand 
which makes up the deficiency just mentioned. It is his 
“Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology’, which appeared in 
three volumes. A part of it is obtainable in an English 
translation, published by Scribner’s. The author says in 
the Foreword: “Having myself been educated under 
Scholten and Kuenen, in an entirely different sphere of 
theological ideas, and later not less charmed with the 
Vermittelungstheologie, I found no rest for my heart, 
neither for my thinking, than when my eye was opened 
for the depth, the earnestness and the beauty of the 
Reformed Confession, which has come to us from those 
days so rich spiritually, when Calvinism was still a 
world-power not only in the theological, but also in the 
social and political domains. This made me see the 
strong necessity of waking up this Reformed theology 

12 


A PAGE OR TWO FROM CHURCH HISTORY 


which as such has, since the middle of the eighteenth 
century, entered upon the sleep of the slothful, and of 
bringing it into rapport with human consciousness as 
this has developed itself in our day.’ In another place 
he says his object is to “give solid ground under foot.’’ 
Though flowing forth from the old Reformed principle 
of authority, there is nothing “‘static’’ about this work; 
it is thoroughly up-to-date; it presents the unchange- 
able things of being and thought in the realm of religion 
with firmer grasp, because ‘seen in the light of continued 
Bible study and called forth through later developments 
of error. In our opinion this work deserves to be read 
and re-read; to be pondered and assimilated; since it 
gives to the heart, to the Christian mind, as it satisfies 
its deepest needs, a sense of unshakeable security in 
setting forth the nature of the Testimony of the Holy 
Spirit to the truth of Divine realities. Considerable 
quotation from this work will be made in chapters which 
are to follow. 

In our next chapter we give, in somewhat abridged 
form, a translation of a famous lecture delivered by Dr. 
Kuyper in 1871. We do so because of its numerous 
correspondencies with present conditions in America. 

In conclusion, we can only note that shortly after the 
death of Kuyper, another able Reformed theologian, his 
successor to the chair of Dogmatics in the Free 
University of Amsterdam, passed away, the Rev. Dr. 
Herman Bavinck. He is known in America for his 
Stone Lectures, “The Philosophy of Revelation”. He 
left a complete Dogmatics in four volumes, which stands 
squarely upon the Scripture principle of the Reforma- 
tion. It is a work of very wide research, judicious 
formulation and severely scientific in the presentation of 
the material. Dr. Bavinck was also a great student of 


13 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


philosophy, so that it is a great pity that he did not live 
long enough to furnish a Philosophy on lines indicated by 
the Word of God, the Highest Wisdom, and so deliver 
us in a measure from the ceaseless flux and reflux of 
human speculations. 


14 


CHAPTER II 


MODERNISM, A FATA MORGANA IN THE 
CHRISTIAN WORLD 


BY ABRAHAM KUYPER, D.D. * 


A tremendous spiritual conflict is raging. Everything 
about us is in a ferment. Firm foundations are being 
battered and principles undermined. 

The peaceable are inclined to leave it all alone and 
allow the fires to die down of themselves. But for my 
part, I have the strongest conviction that we may not 
resort to such a course, and I desire to give my reasons 
for this in the light of an occurrence in the English House 
of Commons dating from 1791. The French Revolution 
had but recently broken out. Edmund Burke had attacked 
it in an able pamphlet entitled: ““Reflexions on the French 
Revolution.”” This pamphlet quickly attained an immense 
circulation. In it Burke set forth the infernal origin of 
this movement, and, seizing the monster by the horns, 
flung it down upon the rock of the Divine Word and 
ordinances. Now, on the sixth day of May of that year, 
Charles J. Fox, a bosom friend of Burke, rose from the 
ministerial benches in the House of Commons and 
proceeded emphatically to plead in favor of said Revolu- 
tion. In reply Burke did not hesitate at once and openly 
to break with Fox; and although the latter burst out in 
tears, and besought his friend not to sunder the ties 
which had bound them for thirty years, Burke remained 
immovable, inexorable. Since principles were involved, 
he would not listen to accommodation. He said: “I know 
the value of my line of conduct; I have indeed made a 

15 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


great sacrifice; I have done my duty, though I have lost 
a friend. There is something in the detested French 
Revolution that envenoms everything it touches.’”* 

In this resolute act and virile language there 1s some- 
thing which captivates any man of character, for as soon 
as principles which conflict with your deepest convictions 
gain ground, controversy becomes a duty, peace becomes 
sinful, and you are obliged to denounce such pernicious 
principles, and brand them with the mark of infamy. 

Now I judge that in the same sense controversy may 
no longer be avoided with Modernism, in which the 
warfare against Christianity has now created its best 
correlated system. This is, to be sure, a pity, because 
religion loses something of its fragrance if we must 
debate it before we may enjoy it; but, in spite of this 
aversion, it behooves us to confess with Burke, to quote 
him once more: “Such is now the misfortune of our age, 
that everything is to be discussed, as if the truth of 
religion were to be always a subject rather of altercation 
than enjoyment.” You cannot run away from your 
times, you must take them as they are, and as a matter 
of fact our age demands either of two: to behold the 
verities of your faith crumbling away, or to engage in 
its defense ; and before such a choice a man of convictions 
does not know what even hesitation is. 

Because of the serious character of this controversy 
it may never seek strength in disparagement, nor may it 


degenerate into abuse. Whoever fails to set due value 

* “Coleridge, asking whence Burke gained his superiority of 
foresight so strikingly verified by the course of events, says: 
‘Burke possessed, and had sedulously sharpened that eye which 
sees all things, actions and events in relation to the laws that 
determine their existence and circumscribe their possibility. 
We referred habitually to principles. He was a scientific states- 
man, and therefore a seer. For every principle contains in itself 

oR. 


the germs of prophecy’.”—Biogr. Dict.; cited by G. H. H. 
16 


MODERNISM, A FATA MORGANA IN THE CHRISTIAN WORLD 


upon his opponent does not so much fight him as the 
scarecrow of his own imagination. Rather shall an 
earnest appraisal of Modernism afford me the basis for 
its refutation. And I did not know in what manner the 
more effectively to convey to you both what I value in 
Modernism as well as for what reason I oppose it, than 
to set it forth as a Fata Morgana in the Christian World. 

This “Fata Morgana” is a mirage observed on the 
Sicilian coast poetically attributed to the fairy (fata) 
Morgana of Arthurian romance. This Fata Morgana 
has three characteristics; first, it presents to the wonder- 
ing eye a beautiful view of palaces, landscapes and grazing 
cattle ; secondly, this Morgana arises from a fixed law of 
refraction under certain atmospheric conditions, not 
creating anything, but reflecting in multiple and exagger- 
ated forms what actually exists on Reggio’s shores; 
finally, it lacks all reality. Using this as an illustration, 
I propose to point out to you that Modernism is first of 
all, charmingly beautiful; secondly, that it appears 
according to fixed laws; and finally, that it lacks the 
reality of the truth. 


i 


First of all, then, allow me to show why Modernism 
is so charmingly beautiful. 

When, about the middle of the ‘nineteenth century, 
Modernism under that specific name first appeared in 
the Netherlands, the striking phenomenon presented itself 
that strictly orthodox people, who for some time had been 
absenting themselves from attendance at divine services 
because of the perfunctory and insipid type of preaching 
then prevalent, suddenly took notice of the new type of 
preaching which young men.with a fine enthusiasm and 

“4 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


with the use of the ancient terminology, were offering 
to the people. They listened for a time with glad surprise. 
However, doubts and fears soon began to trouble their 
fond hopes. Eventually they correctly guaged the situa- 
tion, and asserted that they had been deceived with fair 
words and plausible presentations. 

Aside from this historical reference, the circumstance 
that Modernism appeals to the finer sensibilities is 
evident from the fact that the élite of society, the men 
of thought, the men of earnest, serious impulses were 
captivated by it. And what did these people think of 
those who still clung to the old, even though so many 
of these latter were men of intelligence? They simply 
could not understand them; they labelled them as im- 
possibles, behind the times. In Modernist circles of 
course our view of Christianity is considered to be clumsy 
caricature not answering to the needs of the heart nor 
fitting.in with the times. But we must not forget that 
the thinking world has not examined orthodoxy in its 
own domain, but is acquainted only with the form in 
which off-hand public opinion exhibits it. And what 
does that make of positive Christianity? It is the differ- 
ence between fungus and the stately oak. Public opinion 
regards what is immediately tangible; it sees in Christian- 
ity a series of singular acts and another series of singular 
moral demands, but it sees nothing of the marvelous 
organism which, hidden beneath the surface of things, 
binds these facts and sanctions together. Of course, the 
problems of life do not find their chief end in such a 
conception of things. The heart is too deep, the riddles 
of life too amazing as to be disposed of so easily. The 
thoughtful have perceived this. And so, when Modernism 
came, which once more put the glory of the ideal in view, 
which analyzed the human heart, which again inquired 

18 


MODERNISM, A FATA MORGANA IN THE CHRISTIAN WORLD 


after causes, principles and relations, — all this appealed 
to the inquiring mind and wherever orthodoxy had lost 
its power. 

For, after all, Christianity is a matter which concerns 
the realities of life: it fits the human heart and is 
calculated to fill the depths of that heart with its holy 
content. In its very essence Christianity is truly human. 
But it is such a great mistake to cut off its roots with 
which it must attach itself to the heart and heighten our 
consciousness of the supreme value of Christianity. What 
a tremendous mistake to prefer this, as, having forgotten 
the solid foundation of reality, one is entranced by the 
visions which merely appear to give what the heart calls 
for whilst indulging the easy fancies of its self-centered 
inclination. 


II 


A first view of Modernism offering a charm compar- 
able to the Morgana, we shall next show how both of 
them arise in obedience to a common law of necessity. 

As the Morgana is a false appearance in the natural 
world, so heresy is a false aspect of the truth. 

Let no one take offense at this word. This should not | 
be done because the term affords an indispensable concept 
in the Christian body of truth. Furthermore, Scripture 
furnishes us the example for the use of the term. But 
Rome has brought it into bad odor, particularly because 
Aquinas said that the heretic “should not only be cut off 
from the Church, but also from this life through death.” 
Hence Rome, which thirsts after the blood of heretics, 
has been the real cause of this useful term’s remaining 
so long in disrepute. But Schleiermacher, whom Modern- 
ists have reason to esteem, has again brought the term 

19 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY. 


into honor, and, having washed it of its blood-stains, no 
one should find fault with its use for expressing certain 
relations to truth. 

As a matter of fact heresies always existed, and they 
must obtain because they arise in the Christian world 
according to a fixed law, just as the Morgana in the air. 
Specific conditions in the Christian world prepare the 
way for heresy. When, after an age of spiritual dark- 
ness, the light of knowledge arises but half-way in the 
air, Christianity as an object of contemplation falls under 
the partial illumination of this light, and if the required 
conditions are present in this spiritual atmosphere, heresy 
must show itselfi—it cannot remain away. As the Mor- 
gana is nothing else than the refraction of the light in 
nature, so heresy is but the necessary refraction of the light 
of Christianity in the spiritual atmosphere of an age. 

For what is heresy? It becomes such when it opposes 
the confession of the Church in its own domain, as a 
result of which it seeks to bind the conscience to its own 
recognition, and itself presses for the mastery in the 
bosom of the Church. 

The root of every heretical phenomenon is found in 
the human heart, and therefore there is no heresy but 
what it ever has been, and always will remain. However, 
in each age of renewed spiritual inquiry some heresy or 
other finds its congenial soil in the ideas prevalent in 
such an age, and is fed by them. Hence, such error 
acquires a dominating position; such error is to be ex- 
plained from the refraction of Christianity in the spirit 
of that age. The fourth, the ninth, and the sixteenth 
centuries were the great crises in the life of Europe, and 
it can be affirmed that the centuries preceding these were 
centuries of spiritual sterility. The fourth witnessed the 
controversy over the Trinity and Free Will; the ninth 

20 


MODERNISM, A FATA MORGANA IN THE CHRISTIAN WORLD 


turned on the questions of Filioque and the Sacrament; 
and in and through the Reformation the heresies of 
Socinus, and shortly after, that of Arminius began their 
course. 

The tendency of heresy is to rob Christianity of its 
absolute character and to remove the fact of the recon- 
ciliation of the sinner more and more out of the deep 
springs of life towards the circumference of thought, 
disposition and will. This is also true of the Modernism 
of to-day. In some form or other Rationalism has always 
existed, but it has never acquired such a vogue as it has 
to-day, and it has never appeared with such unctious 
pretension. 

These nineteenth and twentieth centuries constitute an 
age of peculiar enlightenment, and occupy in history a 
place of such honor that we have arrived at a very critical 
point in the life of the nations. It must follow therefore 
from the laws of history that a great heresy could not 
remain away. The sun of our age has not yet entered — 
the fulness of the truth. Modernism is its heretical 
refraction peculiar to this day. Of course, Modernism 
borrows its ideas from Christianity, but it also shows a 
paganistic shade in that it builds up its system from out 
of man. 

And now the last question: What is there in our 
spiritual atmosphere which causes this phenomenon to 
appear to-day? Why must heresy at this very time be 
this presumptuous Modernism? 

The chief characteristic of our time is its realism. It 
has learned not to enthuse over empty ideals; before all 
things it wants to see, and to feel, and I would add, to 
fully enjoy. Four circumstances have driven this age 
into this realistic track: the bankruptcy of philosophy, 
the impotence of the French Revolution, the great 

: at 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


advances in Nature-study, and the superficiality of 
religion. 

1. Our age has judged that all speculative philosophy 
is bankrupt. It has stared itself blind at the hieroglyphics 
of the oracular language of Kant; it has bathed itself in 
Jacobi’s sensuousness; for a while it has been enthused 
with Fichte’s idealism of the Ego and Non-Ego; it was 
thought for a time that firmer ground was afforded in 
Schelling’s gnosticism; and at last it has gasped in 
astonishment at the giddy mental gymnastics of Hegel. 
But, cured of the idea that the starting-point lay in these 
directions, it drew itself back into the concrete, and began 
to praise crude matter, and the ugliest animal as more 
beautiful than the most brilliant tissue of thought, of 
which the light frail cobweb would disappear before the 
slightest zephyr. 

2. The French Revolution rightly felt that reforma- 
tion was most necessary in the spiritual articulations of 
social and civil life. New life had awakened which 
required a new form. However, when it was thought 
that destruction of everything in existence was sufficient, 
and that new forms would arise as by magic, grievous 
disappointment ensued. As the dead past was cast off, 
and that which had so recently been conjured up dis- 
appeared in thin air, a taste for the idealism of a nobler 
national existence and for the demands of righteousness 
as the high calling of the nation, died away, and all 
studies of state resolved themselves in the realistic ques- 
tions of capital and labor, of supply and demand. 

3. Nature-studies have reached an unprecedented 
height. But whoever thinks that in consequence thereof 
our domination over nature is increased, is in error. 
Quite the contrary. The most important investigations, 
the greatest inventions in the domains of light and air 

22 


MODERNISM, A FATA MORGANA IN THE CHRISTIAN WORLD 


have not made us lord over nature, but the contrary. All 
speak concerning her, for her is all our love, and for her 
we spend our strength. She charms us and dallies with 
our hearts and senses as a mistress. She permitted us 
to unloose her powers, but only in order by these very 
powers to rule in our life! And now, she is the visible, 
she is the ponderablé, and thus she helps to further our 
perception of the real. 

4. * [No less an authority than ex-President Hadley, 
of Yale University, stated as recently as October, 1923, 
that the “really distinctive faults which can be charged 
against the American people” is that which “results from 
a combination of two sets of faults; faults of superficial 
thinking or judgment, on the one hand, and faults of 
self-advertising and boastfulness on the other’ (Current 
History, Oct. 1923, p. 7). Our great republic was found- 
ed by Puritan, Knickerbocker and Huguenot, men of 
sterling worth and solid convictions, who laid the foun- 
dations of our liberties sound and secure. However, in 
course of time we have been so completely taken up with 
our achievements, and have been so engrossed with our 
great affairs, and so spoiled by our prosperity, that on 
the one hand a sense of supreme satisfaction has hindered 
exertion to the neglect of the slower processes of high 
and deep thinking, and on the other hand, has weakened 
our ability for the perception of the strenuous. Smart- 
ness and quickness have slurred over thoroughness. 
There is a general complaint of ignorance of the great 
things of religion; there is small disposition to listen to 


* Owing to a quite diverse situation in The Netherlands at 
the time when this lecture was delivered, and which does not 
obtain in America, we have been obliged to substitute matter of 
‘our own (in this one bracketed paragraph only), in order in- 
telligently to carry through the sustained simile of the eminent 
Lecturer —G. H. H. 


23 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE -OF AUTHORITY 


the strong meat of Scripture: everything must be pre- 
digested, everything must be served spicily, and be quick 
about it. Hence there is no taste for looking into the 
marvelous organism of Scripture; what lies on the surface 
is enough; snap judgment based on poor data is the rage, 
and there you have a most ideal soil for Modernism to 
thrive in. Democracy as self-expression of the people has 
engendered a_ self-sufficiency which has not failed to 
infect even the theologian, so much so that the appeal 
to reason and to the ‘natural man’ has found ready 
response. | 

Thus four factors conspired to impress a very realistic 
stamp upon our age. Its power must therefore be sought 
in its realism; however, its weakness lies in the same 
direction. Realism can and does easily beget materialism, 
and the right is apt to be accorded to the strong. The 
Modernists of America are impatient with anything that 
savors of cant, formalism, dead issues, etc. But, while 
it forgets to sift the false from the true, it imagines itself 
to be true to reality by putting the authority for things 
religious well within the reach of man. Democracy has 
reached a point where it summons everything to the 
court of its own competency. Thus the light of the Sun 
of Righteousness cannot be seen in its own independent 
glory, but is refracted by this earth-born atmosphere of 
a democratic self-sufficiency. 

In designing to grasp the truth, instead of being divert- 
ed by an unreal traditionalism and formalism, Modernism 
means well; and it actually attempts to effect reconcilia- 
tion between the things which are above and the things 
of this life. It seeks its strength in compromise. Above 
indeed are the things invisible: thither all must tend. 
And our age would follow; with the proviso, however, 
that it need not for a moment lift its foot from this 


Pe 24 


MODERNISM, A FATA MORGANA IN THE CHRISTIAN WORLD 


visible earth which, unholy as it is, nevertheless must 
remain the scene of holy living. Modernism concedes 
that we should not be too much taken up with heaven, 
but must first of all live for this world. It concedes that 
the study of nature must be conductress for the study of 
the Kingdom of the Spirit. It concedes, that in the con- 
troversy between this world and the next, the former 
should never give way; hence, there can be no miracle. 
And finally, it concedes that, if there be any knowledge 
of God, it must be explained from man as he is. And 
if Christianity is to avail, it must lay aside its absolute 
character and claim of being the only religion. 

Now, Modernism claims to be Protestant. But the 
very spirit of its organization is that of Rationalism, 
which as a generic principle of authority has existed from 
the beginning and against which as well as against the 
principle of the Roman Catholic the Reformation waged 
war. Modernism chooses as its point of departure human 
authority in matters of faith against which very thing 
Protestantism entered its mighty protest. Actually the 
antipode instead of being the fruit of the Reformation, 
Modernism has no right to deck itself with the honors 
of the Reformation. It never had knowledge of the 
contrition of heart which compelled Luther to cry out 
unto his God. It does not know what it means to be 
justified by faith apart from works of the law. The 
Reformation sought salvation for the burdened heart: 
Modernism only seeks the solution of an ingenious 
problem. Hence, as a matter of fact, it knows of only 
one reality: that of things visible, and it overlooks that 
of such a different nature, the much higher, the more 
substantial realities of the “kingdom which cannot be 
moved’. Modernism speaks as though we are still 
dwelling in Eden; it speaks of a natural bond which still 


25 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


unites the visible with the invisible; and it does not 
understand that, if we did live in Eden, salvation would 
have been a term devoid of meaning, and Christianity 
a superfluity. 

You will remember the illusion of the alchemists of 
the Middle Ages, who dreamed of transmuting the base 
metals into gold. They did not then know of the advances 
of modern chemistry which ascertained the fixed boundary 
lines between the different elements. The Modernist 
labors under a similar delusion. He too is ignoring the 
distinctions which the Creator has Himself estabiished 
and which cannot be violated except at man’s peril. The 
Modernist attempts by means of alloy and fusion to 
transform the base character of the unholy into the 
nobility of holiness. The glitter of his compound deceives 
him in the fancy that he is in possession of a superior 
article. 


iI 


And in the third place, Modernism is devoid of reality. 

As a specific school of new thought Modernism arose 
with us (in The Netherlands) about 1855. Concerning 
its history in the fifteen years till now (1870) the follow- 
ing may be noted: It began to erect a theological building 
of ambitious proportions, but already parts have needed 
replacement, and reconstruction has been going on. The 
eminent Professors Scholten and Opzoomer have become 
antiquated and have lost their lead. Men of enthusiasm 
for the new movement have lost courage, and some have 
even left the ministry. And what success did they have? 
In designing to counteract materialism they were sure 
they would win the sensual, the self-willed and the giddy 
for earnest living. As for the really serious-minded 
amongst them it has become evident that they brought 

26 


MODERNISM, A FATA MORGANA IN THE CHRISTIAN WORLD 


this seriousness along with them from their previous 
orthodox education and environment. But their efforts 
have failed to convert the worldly-minded. And to save 
themselves they have even gone so far as to introduce 
methods of the orthodox which they at first had derided. 
Altogether it presents a spectacle of high pretension which 
has run a swift course of disappointment and failure. 

Since this affords poor argument for the reality of 
Modernism, consider further, how the following par- 
ticulars will strike you, on which they bank so heavily. 

1. Against their religious standpoint I bring these 
objections : 

Their very God is devoid of reality, because He ts 
but an abstraction. I know that the Modernist is not 
aware of this, because he worships, loves and praises a 
something which he calls “God”. Through personifica- 
tion he attributes entity and personal existence to that 
“something”. He ascribes to it power to influence his 
moral life. Whatever he conceives of as being highest 
and best is comprehended in his “idea of God’. He feels 
himself entirely absorbed in this self-invented ‘‘God”. 
He is so completely dominated by this “idea of God”’ that 
he rests with complete confidence in him as the sum of 
all good and sure to triumph over everything. But does 
it follow from this that this actually answers to a living 
God? The Modernist follows the method of Dante in 
creating his Beatrice, of Schiller and his Laura, to answer 
to their ideas and feelings. And these poets made their 
fair ones very real to themselves as Schiller later acknow!- 
edged. The Modernist has indeed need of worshipping, 
and so creates an image of the eternal, lovely and beautt- 
ful, which however lacks the virtue of existence. They 
worship the reflex of their own imagination. They can- 
not admit that this should not be real. This spiritual 

27 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


condition of illusionment is not capable of discerning 
between appearance and reality. Only then, when the 
Living God reveals Himself and His exalted majesty 
and holiness is realized, will the pleasing self-deception 
evaporate in thin air. 

And would you ask how we are to decide between 
reality and appearance? There is only one way possible ; 
namely, that God has revealed Himself, that God has 
spoken. 

Consider also the matter of prayer whether in this 
highest expression of the soul the unreality of the 
Modernist idea of God is not confirmed. 

Prayer has always been offered in every place, men 
have prayed in every age and clime, in the simple trust 
that the praying heart was met by a listening ear from 
on high, and that in the answering of prayer the reality 
of the Eternal was best evidenced. But behold! In flat 
contradiction of every age and nation the Modernist now © 
comes to tell us that thus far nobody has ever understood 
the nature of prayer, for it is not an exercise designed 
to secure answers to requests, but it is only an outpouring 
of the soul. The Modernist may use the word prayer, 
but his view of it is a fanatical exaltation of spirit, a 
dialogue with himself, a self-discovery. Now, while there 
are some elements of truth in this representation, the 
preferring of your wants at the Throne of Grace for 
help in time of need really begins in connection with such 
exercise of the soul. | 

Finally, if the Modernist would be consistent, his view 
of providence must be repudiated. The good and the evil 
in nature, on his showing, cannot be harmonized. 
Modernism may not ignore the facts and is obliged to do 
one of two things: either surrender belief in the existence 
of love in God, or divine providence in history. If 

28 


MODERNISM, A FATA MORGANA IN THE CHRISTIAN WORLD 


Modernism, whilst denying the curse, persists in holding 
that God reveals Himself in nature, then the existence 
of love in God cannot be maintained; or, if the Modernist 
does maintain his idea of eternal love, then he is inevitably 
driven to the awful alternative: we can see nothing of a 
divine providence.* 

2. Turning now to things ethical we will examine 
whether the test of reality can be withstood in man as 
pictured by the Modernist; in the sin which he combats; 
and in the ethical idea to which he aspires. 

Does man remain a moral being according to Modern- 
ist conceptions? Darwinism denies the proper creation 
of man. It says: “There can be no miracle; hence no 
partial creation in the world already existing.’’ Two 
alternatives present themselves: man ceases to be either 
ethical, or, a unity, that is, a being. For if man’s moral 
nature is derived from his animal nature, which stands, 
of course, on the lower plane, the separation between the 
natures of both is removed, and thus the absolute or 
specific character of ethical life falls away. But if it be 
argued that such a moral nature was imparted through 
a new infusion, we have the miracle back again, such 
argument does not accord with the Modernist principle, 
and in this way you do not obtain a being, but only an 
appearance, which is divided and put together, and so 
lacks the unity of root-stock, the unmistakable character- 
istic of all being. 

Nor does Modernism recognize the real character of 


* A Congregational minister on the Pacific coast recently 
said, speaking of the great earthquake in Japan: “In the face 
of this disaster, how can people believe in an all-powerful God 
who at the same time is good and loving?...... I have long 
since surrendered the belief that God is all-powerful and that 
He can do anything He wanted to do...... I believe that God 
is finite......and is bound by the laws which He has established 
for the universe.” (Our Hope, 1923, p. 266; cited by G. H. H.) 


20 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


sin. What thus far was called immoral was revised into 
“not yet” moral. To them the whole matter becomes one 
of degree, where the demarcation is hard to give. There- 
fore the notion of sin is misunderstood; in _ fact, 
Opzoomer went so far as to hold that sin and holiness 
were indeed separate states for us but not with God. 
A so-called feeling of guilt is of kin with the restlessness 
and dissatisfaction of the artist who as yet failed to 
attain his ideal. Now this sounds well in refined circles 
But what do you make of the human hyenas, of grinding 
cupidity, of loathsome vice? Such denials of realities 
tend to cause one’s blood to boil. 

Their ethical ideal possesses just as little reality, for 
it is not the fulness itself, but the demand that that fulness 
may come about. They aspire after it, but it must never 
be attained, for then it would lose the character of an 
ideal. This view I take exception to. My ideal is that 
which makes me blessed and happy in a higher and holier 
sense, which completely fills and permeates me. But then 
it must not be an empty demand, but must be that fulness 
of wealth from which we receive, as John says, grace 
for grace. In this way you do not climb up to your ideal, 
but your ideal descends within you. We do not so much 
seek the ideal as that the ideal seeks us, seizes us, conquers 
us laving all the depths of our being with its irresistible 
fulness. Not “become perfect’? but “be perfect”, not 
“become holy” but “be holy” is therefore the message 
of the eternal ideal for him who has heard the divine “It 
is finished!’ on Golgotha. The cradle of Bethlehem, and 
behind Golgotha the opened sepulcher, are the holy 
realities in which that ideal only can be known. The 
knowledge that the Word has become flesh, and its 
acceptance by faith are the conditions on which yearning 
turns into enjoyment. 


30 


MODERNISM, A FATA MORGANA IN THE CHRISTIAN WORLD 


3. In order to ascertain whether a larger measure of 
reality inheres in the theology of Modernism, we shall 
now inquire after its historical sense, its critical methods 
and its dogmatic basis. 

Does the Modernist have a true sense of the historical? 
You have seen the anachronism of clothing Bible person- 
ages in modern dress. Thus Modernism invests history 
with a construction which is alien to it. Modernism must 
either yield before the facts, or else it construes the facts 
to suit its ideas of what the facts ought to be and mean. 
The evidence of the Gospels is not taken as it presents 
itself, but the Modernist determines what part of the 
Gospels and the Epistles is evidence, and he construes it 
all to accord with his preconceived notions. 

Then, their critical method could not serve them to 
good purpose, because, thinking they saw objectively, 
their criticism broke all connection with life. If I am to 
determine the purity of gold, I am first to make sure that 
the touchstone I employ, is really such. Between the object 
that you choose and the touchstone you employ, there 
must exist congruity. However, Modernism calls this 
prejudice, a determining of results beforehand. As if 
one would dare judge of the beauty of colors lacking the 
power to perceive them. Such is the case here. To our 
observation the phenomenon of Christianity presents 
itself with a spirit, a language and a life of its own. A 
healthy criticism would say: You cannot pass competent 
judgment except you possess that sympathy which enables 
you to enter into its life. Not so, says the Modernist ; 
the object must be determined by the investigator. And 
with a criticism run wild, he must determine everything, 
but is not himself amenable to control. As a result he 
can be sure of nothing, and Christianity is apt to be 
destroyed. Thus Scholten, of Leyden, in 1858 enthusias- 


Sei 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


tically defended the authenticity of the Gospel of John, 
barring a few verses, because the persons were so 
historical, the connections so intimate, and everything so 
plainly carried the marks of naturalness, of genuineness. 
Nevertheless, that same Prof. Scholten three years later 
wrote a book in which he argued that all these very 
selfsame things proved the non-genuineness of the entire 
Gospel just as clearly! 

4. The same situation applies to their dogmatics. 
How much soever Modernists look askance at dogmatics, 
they are themselves the most stiff-necked dogmatists out. 
For, a dogma is a tenet which you want to see accepted 
_ by others on the penalty of being held in error. “We 
confess’, says the Church, “‘and he who believes otherwise 
should depart from our midst.’’ The Modernist likewise 
says: “We confess, and whoever thinks otherwise for- 
feits his claim to the title of being an enlightened, cultured 
person.” Or tell me, what else are they than unproved 
premises, and on their standpoint cheap dogmas when 
Modernism proceeds from this general outline of their 
faith? “I, Modernist, believe in a God who is the Father 
of all men; and in Jesus, not the Christ, but the Rabbi 
of Nazareth. I believe in man who is good by nature 
and only needs to strive after perfection. I believe that 
sin 1s relative; that pardon of sin is a matter of human 
invention. I believe in the hope of a better life, and the 
salvation of all without coming into judgment.” Of 
course, he is welcome to believe such things, but it is also 
our right to challenge their lack of reality. Because the 
note of a dogma must be this particular thing that, 
independent of the changes of opinions, it indicates those 
groundlines by means of which the holy truth throughout 
the ages finds its secure position for appropriation and 
further elaboration. Their dogmas, on the contrary, are 


32 


MODERNISM, A FATA MORGANA IN THE CHRISTIAN WORLD 


merely an abstract of ideas current in the market-places 
of life, ill-considered and unrelated to a definite origin. 
Behold, how often and how fast these dogmas can be 
recast, and tell me whether you can believe in the reality 
of a dogma which leans on what it should itself support 
and which is ashamed of its own character. For in 
Modernism public opinion has taken the place of the 
testimony of the Holy Spirit. 

5. Finally, their Church lacks every attribute which 
determines its character as such. The Church of Jesus 
cannot be merely the society of all who live for the ideal ; 
nor, because Modernism loves free investigation, can it 
claim a unity of aim and spirit with the Reformers who 
opposed Rome with the same demand. There is a differ- 
ence between the free investigation of the child who 
breaks his toys to pieces and that of the merchant who 
examines his pearls whether they are genuine or not. 
You have to trace out the attributes of a Church as such 
to determine whether you have one answering to it. 
Subjective opinion here amounts to very little. When, 
then, history teaches you that one of the undeniable 
characteristics of the Church ever was to banish the very 
things you Modernists hold so true, judge ye yourselves 
whether the spirit of your tendency can consist with it. 
The idea of a Church must be defined to make sure that 
that belongs to it which has a right to belong to it. A 
Church is something very peculiarly and_ specifically 
Christian. An objective, well-considered collation of the 
data of Scripture can determine this. 


* *K KF 


Wherever then we cast our plummet the bottom of 
reality sank away. No real God, no true prayer, no real 
providence, the reality of human life threatened, sin 


33 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


unreal, no actual ideal, no true history, no sound criticism, 
no consistent dogma, and as little a real Church. We 
found the names of all these things; the shadows, but 
not the roots of actuality. And still it brings a blessing 
in so far as to compel us once more diligently to give 
ourselves an account of the reasons for the faith that is 
in us. When indifference and lethargy threaten to destroy 
our Christianity, it is well that evil doctrines come in 
to chastise us. But this is not the first time that a heresy 
has invaded the Church which threatens to uproot every- 
thing. In the early Christian centuries Arianism threaten- 
ed to do the same. And F. C. Baur, himself an apostle 
of Modernism, has said that this Arianism has in common 
with Modernism these two fundamental characteristics : 
a lack of reality in religious life, and refusal to honor 
Christianity as the absolute revelation of God. Dr. 
Reville, in a work on the Deity of Christ, points to the 
same family likeness which in the progressive develop- 
ment of Modernism will become ever clearer. 

And the parallel goes even farther. According to 
Dr. Reville, Arianism found its greatest support in the 
cultured classes; the common people leaned mostly 
towards orthodoxy. The State took the side of Arianism 
even unto violence. May we be spared such things! 

I was once a Modernist myself, and have dreamed its 
dreams, and have called it slander when others said I did 
not see what I thought I saw. And it was then that J 
saw the magical illusion of the Morgana and its beautiful 
fabrics sank away to my sight into airy nothings when a 
soft zephyr from Above caused the horizon of my life 
to become tremulous, and ere long in the rising glory 
of my Lord and King true reality appeared. 

Doubt in the realities of life is the vampire which 
seeks to destroy everything. It is again beginning to 

34 


MODERNISM, A FATA MORGANA IN THE CHRISTIAN WORLD 


attach itself to the arms of our present-day life to inject 
its poison. Do ye wish to save her, ye apostles of the 
new faith? The mirage you conjure up can afford but 
temporary stimulus: reaction will come. The cry is for 
reality. What the Modernist offers will not avail. Its 
principle is one of doubt, uncertainty: it holds nothing 
tangible. Once sliding down this declivity, it will be hard 
to call a halt; for where are we? and whither are we 
going? We cannot thrive on phantoms and illusions. 
We need the substantial. And what fits our need better 
than the glorious language of the Apostle John: 

“That which was from the beginning; 

That which we have heard; 

That which we have seen with our eyes; 


That which we beheld; 
And our hands handled concerning the Word of Life’— 


in that, and in that alone lies our strength. That alone 
is the ideal, for in that alone we see the resplendent 
reflection of what is eternally true and good and 
beautiful. 

Indeed, ye Modernists will join us in this praise. But 
this is the great difference: ye have nothing but the ideal, 
whereas the Church of Christ confesses belief in an ideal 
which was real from eternity and was manifested in the 
flesh. Here yawns an unfathomable chasm which makes 
you other than the Church of Christ, in that ye indeed 
have the Word, but ye allow it to glitter in charming 
Morgana’s, whilst the Church of Christ enters into the 
real sanctuary on whose sill God Triune has graven with 
diamond pencil this sublime declaration of Eternal Love: 
“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and 
we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten of the 
Father,—full of Grace and Truth!” 


35 


CHAPTER III 
THE, PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY 


The problem of authority in religion has in these days 
presented itself to the churches with peculiar force and 
insistence. Even the laity and the secular press have 
become interested in the question, and have taken 
animated part in the discussion. Indeed, the matter is of 
tremendous importance because of its far-reaching im- 
plications and consequences. Such questions as_ these 
are asked: What is Christianity, and how shall we know 
it? Where is it to be found? On what grounds can we 
believe what it is? On whose authority can we receive 
its contents as truth? 

There have been three principal answers to such ques- 
tions, each answer so distinctive as to be generic. Namely, 
the view of the Roman Catholic, of the Reformed, and 
of the Rationalist. Speaking from the Reformed stand- 
point, as we are bound to do, we believe that we occupy 
the vantage-ground of being in possession of true 
knowledge and pure faith. We then regard as the one 
extreme, that of the Roman Catholic, which verges on 
a mechanical conception of things, and which engenders 
superstition and tyranny. And the other extreme is that 
of the Rationalist, whose subjective viewpoint ministers 
to doubt and unbelief. 

Each view is motivated by what is called a “principle” ; 
that is to say, each view is dominated by a specific con- 
ception of things which carries its own necessary logical 
outcome. A principle acts as a driving-force which runs 
its inevitable course. Thus each principle constitutes a 

36 


THE PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY 


generic type which is definitely marked off from the 
others. There is no evolution of principles: it is each 
“after its kind’. As they flow forth from distinctive 
conceptions resting in the very constitution of things, 
their number can neither be increased nor diminished. 
There may be mixtures, as we shall see; but these confuse 
and mislead: they do not serve the truth. We can there- 
fore look for the presence of these principles in the course - 
of church history. Indeed, each of them has appeared 
and reappeared in more or less pronounced forms. They 
developed a distinct crisis in the sixteenth century; and 
in this twentieth century they again have asserted them- 
selves with new force. 

Since principles are of such decisive importance, it is 
imperative fully to understand them. This will insure 
correct procedure in their treatment. It is of course 
unfair to proceed from one principle, and to avail oneself 
of the fruits which have been derived from another. It 
is this from which the religious world of to-day is suffer- 
ing so greatly. Large numbers are reasoning on religion 
from the Rationalistic principle, and, unbeknown to 
themselves, they are accepting to some extent the content 
of revelation, and that in a way which practically means 
revelation brought down in a supernatural manner. This 
creates misunderstanding: this tends to confusion and 
harm. The matter needs to be considered and followed up 
from its bed-rock foundations. Thus it will be possible 
the better to approximate the truth. 

Let us briefly indicate the salient points of each of 
these three principles of authority. 

1. The Roman Catholic principle of authority is the 
Church. Roman Catholicism maintains that it is the only 
church, and hence her voice alone is valid. This Church 
is apostolic in origin; it has continued throughout the 


37 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


centuries in the succession of bishops as the authorities 
in the Church. It has the Holy Spirit ever abiding in 
its midst as infallible teacher and guide. It has the 
deposit of faith; is its trustee, its guardian and its inter- 
preter. It interprets Scripture according to the mind of 
the Holy Spirit because He is specifically given to this 
Church and so teaches His very own. It has tradition, 
whose validity is guaranteed in the same manner. 

2. The second principle of authority is that distinctly 
set forth in the days of the Reformation, and is therefore 
called the Reformed principle of authority. The formal 
principle of the Reformation is Scripture as source of 
authority. This Scripture is complete, self-sufficient and 
autopistic; that is, it is to be believed on its own account 
and to be interpreted in its own light. 

3. The third principle of authority is the Reason. 
The human mind takes cognizance of all things. It sizes 
up and estimates according to inner credibility and logic 
whatever comes before it. It sits in judgment on 
historical fact. When the Reason considers the phenomena 
of Christianity, the method is called Rationalism. And 
this again has its various forms, and obtains in various 
degrees, coming under such designations as Liberalism, 
Latitudinarianism, Modernism, etc. In its worst forms 
it issues into Agnosticism and Atheism. 

No one will deny that God is the absolute authority. 
But this is the question: Has He spoken? Has He 
declared or revealed His will to man? This is answered 
in different ways according to the principles of authority 
already noted. Now the Reformed answer: We would 
not know where to find revelation except in the Holy 
Scriptures. Hence they have called the Bible the material 
principle of authority, and it was the formal principle of 
the Reformation, validated in the consciousness of the 

38 


THE PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY 


believer through the testimony of the Holy Spirit. The 
Church can be a source of authority only in a derivative 
sense : it is the organization which exhibits the knowledge 
of God (1 Tim. 3:15). And the Reason is the instrument 
of the soul of man by which he apprehends and assimilates 
God’s revelation. Even Dr. C. A. Briggs in his “The 
Bible, the Church, and the Reason” does not coordinate 
them, but he also makes the latter two dependent upon 
the former. He says: “This doctrine of the independent 
sovereign authority of Holy Scripture as sufficient of 
itself to convince, assure and give infallible certitude to 
men as regards its own authority, is one of the most 
precious doctrines of the Reformation. The divine 
authority of Holy Scripture consists in the presence and 
power of God in it and with it” (p. 4). “The Reason 
and the conscience respond to the teachings of God’s 
Word and bow to its divine authority; but nothng shall 
be imposed upon the reason and the conscience by the 
church that is contrary to the Word, or beside it and 
not determined by it. The reason and the conscience are 
authoritative in all matters of faith and worship not 
defined by Scripture” (p. 35). However, when Briggs 
speaks of the Reason as a “fountain of authority’, he 
uses that term in a different sense than as he applies it 
to Scripture; he really characterizes the reason as the 
instrument of intelligence and not as an actual source of 
divine knowledge. Further, he says: “The Reformers 
rescued the Holy Scriptures from the domination of the 
Church and they maintained the right of the reason..... 
Such evidence [1.e., the very best external evidence] is the 
highest evidence which can be produced until the divine 
Spirit Himself, who guided the writers of the Holy 
Scriptures, also speaks in our hearts, in the forms of the 
Reason [our Italics] the confirming word, for ‘Our full 


39 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and 
divine authority thereof, is from the inward working of 
the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the word 
in our hearts’”’ (p. 74). 

We do not forget that there are some views which 
might also pass for principles of authority and so seem 
to add to the number held above to be limited to three. 
Thus, feeling has been held to be the real motive power 
of spiritual life, partaking of the nature of a principle 
of authority. Schleiermacher is the great representative 
of this idea and his view has very largely influenced the 
theology of to-day. But on careful consideration it must 
appear plain that feeling, being very closely related to 
reason as another faculty of the soul, these are mutually 
dependent upon each other, they function reciprocally. 
Even feeling has its reasons even though often obscure: 
it acts as it desires to do for reasons of its own. “It is 
said that Schleiermacher overcame Rationalism. That 
is so; but in his raising feeling to its eminence, he had 
indeed shut the front door, but at the same time he 
opened a backdoor through which the enemy returned in 
a new dress. It seemed that theclogy had come to better 
things, but alas, it had only turned into a_ by-path”’ 
(Steffens). 

“Tt was tried not only with feeling, the conscience also 
was to serve as rule of faith and practice. Claus Harms 
correctly affirmed that just as reason had reigned in the 
church in the eighteenth century, so in the nineteenth 
conscience had become an authoritative power. Not what 
the Bible said was rule, but that which carried away the 
approval of conscience was the rule of conduct, and was 
praised as being infallible, standing even above the Word 
of God” (Steffens). We ask once more, on what 
grounds could conscience act in the way it does, if not 

40 


THE PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY 


through reason? The estimates and the judgments of the 
reason give conscience its direction. If then the Word of 
God has not become its norm, it can only be the reason 
which here determines; so that the principle of conscience 
is simply a species of Rationalism whose method it 
follows. 

This exaltation of the Word above reason, feeling and 
conscience does not put these on non-activity. “Each has 
its own place and value. However, only then will they 
have value when they take the place which belongs to 
them. Reason was given to man in order that, enlight- 
ened by the Spirit of God, he might contemplate with 
rapture and adoration the glory of the truth which God 
revealed. Feeling has been imparted to us that it might 
be the expression of sorrow over our sins and of joy 
over our redemption in Christ. Conscience has been 
given as a sort of alarm-clock, which, made effective 
through contact with God’s Word, is to accompany us in 
this life to constantly keep us awake. Each performs an 
excellent function if subordinated to the Word of God, 
but they will lead into error if separated from it” (Stef- 
fens ). 

There is still another variation of type which might 
seem to give the best principle of authority: it is a type 
so plausible as to carry away as well the learned as the 
unsophisticated by its witchery. It is this: Jesus is the 
great personality whom we must love and follow; his 
spirit will operate as a corrective of all ills. We need not 
trouble about the old Testament, about Paul and his 
epistles, about doctrine or church, if we only have Jesus: 
Fis person and his words are the real authority. 

But this view again resolves itself into the principle of 
the Rationalist. How do they know who Jesus is? And 
how can they be sure of the recorded sayings as being 

Al 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


his? What part of the testimony concerning him in the 
Gospels will they accept? On a close examination it will 
all come down to subjective estimation of the writings we 
have from the early Christian centuries. As this is left to 
the individual good pleasure there is no telling what the 
outcome can be. The “feelings” of heart which such 
people cherish are apt to evaporate as new estimates of 
the reason enter in. All these views agree in this that the 
Bible has a subordinate position, all or part of it being 
rejected according to the subjective impulse and-judg- 
ment. 

In this discussion it is our chief purpose to illustrate 
and maintain the Reformed principle of authority as over 
against that of the Rationalist. Each will be considered 
in their specific characters and followed out to their logi- 
cal conclusions. 

McClintock and Strong’s Encyclopedia gives the fol- 
lowing clear account of Rationalism, whose ear-marks 
appear more or less pronounced in every form of it. 
“Rationalism is a term applied to a specific movement 
in theology which assumed definite shape about the mid- 
dle of the eighteenth century, and culminated in the first 
decades of the nineteenth. Its chief seat was in Protestant 
Germany. Its distinguishing trait consisted in erecting 
the human understanding into a supreme judge over the 
Word of God, and thus, by implication, denying the im- 
portance, and even necessity of any miraculous revelation 
whatever. But a tendency to rationalism has existed to 
some degree wherever human thought has made the least 
advance. Especially are its outbreaks distinctly recogniz- 
able at several points along the course of the history of 
theology; and in several countries it has existed as a 
clearly defined movement even before its full develop- 
ment in Germany. 


THE PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY 


“In Germany the full tide of revolutionary criticism 
takes systematic form in Semler of Halle. By Semler al- 
most the whole circle of orthodox landmarks was thrown 
into confusion; the Bible-text was assailed; the pertinency 
of standard proof-texts was denied; the genuineness of 
Biblical books was contested; the foundation was dashed 
away from numerous usages and dogmas which had 
hitherto passed absolutely unassailable. Although many 
ot the points which Semler made were subsequently fur- 
ther developed and accepted as sound, yet the immediate 
effect in Jus day was to throw doubt into the whole 
arsenal of orthodoxy” (VIII. 921). 

We have here an account of Rationalism in its scien- 
tific and in a rather vicious form. But the principle ts 
of a generic type. And the question is, whether even the 
better forms are not apt to revert to type in course of 
time. Hagenbach’s “History of Doctrine” gives the fol- 
lowing illuminating judgment: 

“German Rationalism has, at least, retained an histori- 
cal and Scriptural Christianity, and by making use of 
ecclesiastical institutions, e. g., by preaching, endeavored 
to promote the spread of moral and religious principles, 
especially in opposition to pantheistic tendencies which 
threaten to destroy the sense of true morality. Thus we 
may be permitted, in due acknowledgement of its merits, 
to speak of a Christian Rationalism” (II. 396, 397). 

Hagenbach is courteous indeed to speak as well as he 
does of this German Rationalism and to call it Christian. 
But what does this mean? We fear the designation be- 
trays an impure classification. It can be called Christian 
only in so far that it used Christian terms, but the root 
is wholly bad and destructive of Christianity. It is a 
thing of lead, and though gold-plated ever so heavily as 
to deceive the very elect, it is of the evil one. 

43 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


We must therefore estimate Rationalism in its core, 
diverted of the elements which do not belong to it, that 
is to say, divested of the glory which it has borrowed 
from the Christianity it dishonors. For this double-deal- 
ing complicates the situation in confusing people in their 
attempt to arrive at a correct estimate. Does the Ration- 
alist believe in any revelation at all worthy the name? Is 
he not confusing it with the inspiration of genius and the 
like? There is so much haziness and equivocation about 
their conceptions and constructions of things, and 
degrees therein, as to make it difficult to come to clear- 
cut issues. If they believe in a real revelation, where is 
it? If it is to be found in Scripture, by what criterion 
may they reject any part of it? If reason gives the 
content to religious ideas, is it any longer revelation? 
Looking at its methods and operations it is clear that 
Rationalism leans on its own understanding. Through his 
reason he takes God under examination, and he thinks he 
can draw out from Him what he wants to know; one 
might almost say, he forces Him to give testimony to suit 
the fancy of the examiner. Man sets himself up as judge, 
and he imagines he gets the facts as they are, while he 
really determines how he wants them to be. Thus the 
entire animus and proceeding is subjective; the objective 
hardly exists for him: what it seems to be is the creature 
of his own imagination. The inscrutable and unfathom- 
able bents and dispositions of the human mind and nature 
furnish the basis of knowledge and the method of acquir- 
ing it. Faith therefore can best see how Rationalism runs 
in the mould of fallen human nature; that it is self- 
centered, proud, and hostile to the divine righteousness. 

Now Christianity is based on revelation, without which 
it would be worth little more than Buddhism or Confu- 
cianism. Revelation stands before us as something 

44 


THE PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY 


objective: we could not know the thoughts of God if He 
were not pleased to speak, to reveal Himself. Hence we 
must take the testimony from Him as He gives it, and 
not manipulate it to suit our fancy, or to remove the 
difficulties which exist in our finite comprehension. It 
is a choice between something that has been presented to 
our notice and what we think we can make of it; between 
fact and fancy. Objectively, we have something on which 
we can plant our feet: subjectively, we sail upon an 
immense ocean of possibilities and uncertainties. 

“The Reformation, we are told, has delivered us from 
an infallible man, but gave us instead an infallible book 
whose despotism is as bad as that of the pope. The task 
of our times, they say, is to break down the infallibility 
of the book and to enthrone reason and conscience; 1.e., 
as I would say, the infallible individual...... Mystically 
inclined adherents of the ‘inner light’ in our days tell 
us that we do not need the book, for we have the person 
of Christ, and we believe in Him and not in a dead letter. 
And all this we have to believe on the authority of these 
good souls who draw these tremendous statements from 
the recesses of their hearts’ (Steffens). 

“There is nothing more important in the age in which 
we live than to bear constantly in mind that all the Christ- 
janity of Christianity rests precisely on ‘external. 
authority’. Religion, of course, we can have without 
‘external authority’, for man is a religious animal, and 
will function religiously always and everywhere. But 
Christianity, no. Christianity rests on ‘external author- 
ity’, and that for the very good reason that it is not a 
product of man’s religious sentiment, but is a gift of 
God. To ask us to set aside ‘external authority’ and 
throw ourselves back on what we find within us alone — 
call it by whatever name ye choose, ‘religious experience’, 

45 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


‘the Christian consciousness’, ‘the inner light’, ‘the im- 
manent divine’ — is to ask us to discard Christianity and 
revert to natural religion’”’ (Warfield). 

It has been said that this orthodox view is Romanizing 
in its character in that it is based upon an external au- 
thority. This is true or not true according to the terms 
of the comparison. The fact that human beings have two 
legs in common with the fowls does not constitute them 
one genus. Likewise, while it is true that Roman Catho- 
lics and Reformed both rest their authority for religion 
on something external, they are, as a matter of fact, quite 
diverse in that they do this each on their own characteris- 
tic principle. And as over against the Catholic and the 
Reformed the consistent Liberal is even worse off for 
the grounds of his religion in that he has little authority 
worth mentioning, as it practically is based upon himself, 
upon private views, so that he falls outside the pale of 
revelation and occupies the position of the pagan. 

And, pray, consider when we proceed on the principle 
of Rationalism in what endless difficulty we involve our- 
selves, what confusion we make! We ask, what ground ts 
there for the reliability of such knowledge? What 
authority can it impose upon those who seek guidance for 
an eternal destiny? What value can there be in a multi- 
tude of diverse counsels? Where a thousand or more 
subjectivities speak, all more or less diverse, on which 
one shall the soul place reliance? Who gives the facts of 
eternal import? Everything hangs at such loose ends that 
all claims to reliability are self-condemned, and Agnostic- 
ism has every right to feel justified. 

And still the Rationalist has an amazing amount of 
religious knowledge which he could not possibly have 
evolved from mere reason. Whence did he get it? After 
all, he has a fund of impressions and beliefs which he has 

| He 


THE PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY 


derived from revelation, however much he may think he 
has struggled free from it. The afterglow of the sunlight 
of revelation still sheds its blessed light upon the hostile 
investigator. He thinks human reason in the course of 
time evolved it; he is mistaken: he does not realize what 
an impossible task that would have been. However, as 
the sure basis of revelation is being forsaken, and one 
doctrine and fact after another is being thrown over- 
board, a process of disintegration is bound to set in 
which will cause mind and heart to revert more and more 
to the spiritual darkness of paganism. The rationalistic 
principle, though at first so largely tinged with Christian 
ideas, must struggle with the principle of faith, but will 
eventually gain upon it. Semler, the father of German 
Rationalism, was a pious. man, but in his disciples the 
logical thing happened. Jacobi said he was a heathen with 
his head, but a Christian in his heart. Degeneration will 
soon also invade the heart. There will be no halt in the 
downward course to unbelief except that the mercies of 
the Lord which are sovereign and free, intervene, and in 
His own good time the Spirit of the Lord once more 
touches the heart and illumines the mind with new life 
and light. The instances are numerous. Dr. A. Kuyper, 
of The Netherlands, sat at the feet of Professors Kuenen, 
Scholten and other Liberals, and imbibed their teachings. 
But the cry of the hungry soul, the practical experiences 
of life, deeper study of the principles of revelation com- 
pletely changed him, and he most heartily espoused the 
cause of the Reformers, developing the Reformed faith 
according to its inner principles, and insisting upon the 
mysticism of the heart as regulated by the Word. Paul 
M. Kanamori, of Japan, was a signal trophy of grace 
in the early days of Japanese missions; he engaged in 
Christian work; he went to the professorial chair; ac- 
A7 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


quaintance with Rationalism so shook his faith that dense 
spiritual darkness fell upon him for years, till the provi- 
dence of God led him out into the renewed vision of the 
light anchored as he became once more on the undoubted 
basis of divine revelation. 

~ Now consider carefully where our point of departs 
must lie in these matters of eternal import. The idea of 
religion has to do with those needs and impulses which 
are due to man’s having been created in the image of God. 
Such is the spiritual constitution of man that he can find 
satisfaction for his real self only in God. His disregard of 
his spiritual welfare does not change this, for he is or will 
find himself unhappy without such rest in God. Ideally 
speaking, then, we may say that the spirit of man thirsts 
after God, after the Living God. Hence the question will 
never down: Will God answer the cry of the soul? The 
Reformed so believe; and they call His answer Revela- 
tion. The Reformed principle of authority is due to the 
belief in a personal God; that He is interested in the 
works of His hands; that He reveals Himself to His 
rational creatures; and that the deposit of this revelation 
can be found nowhere else except in the Holy Scriptures. 
“God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the 
prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath 
at the end of these days spoken unto us in His Son” 
(Heb. 1:1, 2). And now for these nearly two thousand 
vears this world has not heard His voice. All that we 
have is the record thereof — Holy Scripture. If it be 
doubted whether He spake in this, we simply have 
nothing, and Agnosticism will be the sensible alternative. 
It all becomes a question of fact and identity. Since Ra- 
tionalism does not commend itself because of its 
exceeding great poverty of guarantees, and its subjecti- 
vity which from the nature of the case is not revelation, 

48 


THE PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY 


all hope of having anything reliable in that direction is 
cut off. A prospect of possessing something real and 
authoritative rests in the Reformed view that God has 
revealed Himself and that Holy Scripture is the sum- 
total record of this revelation. This, then, is the 
Reformed principle of authority, that is, we hold this in 
an axiomatic way. Now it is not expected that axioms 
shall be proved: that cannot be done: axioms are accepted 
as a working basis on which to go on further. And simi- 
larly the Reformed principle of authority becomes the 
only workable principle — the only one which will prove 
to accord with facts and experiences. ‘This. principle 
commends itself not only for what it is, but every consid- 
eration supports it, justifies it. Like the fitting together 
of the various irregular pieces of a dissected map which 
cannot possibly be fitted together in any other way than 
in the only one right way, so the facts of existence and 
life can bring no harmony to the thought, nor satisfaction 
to the heart except on that which comes through the use 
of the Reformed principle of authority. Let it be admit- 
ted that it is based on an immense postulation; it is to be 
remembered as well that the principle of Rationalism is 
also based on a postulation which is far from satisfactory 
as it involves us in a maze of far worse difficulties. We 
therefore most heartily accept the principle of the Re- 
formers which has been most effective in its operation, 
and has afforded the greatest satisfaction in the contem- 
plation of the mind enlightened by the spirit of God. 

We shall now quote writers from the days of the 
Reformation and immediately after to give their construc- 
tion of their principle of authority. First of all John 
Calvin, that man of remarkable mental and _ spiritual 
powers whose fame can never die: 

“But I answer that the testimony of the Spirit is more 

49 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


excellent than that of all reason. For as God is a capable 
witness in His Word in regard to Himself, likewise that 
Word will not find credence in the hearts of men before 
it is attested by the internal witness of the Spirit. There- 
fore it is necessary that this selfsame spirit who has. 
spoken by the mouth of the prophets shall enter into our 
hearts in order to convince us that they have faithfully 
spoken what had been divinely commanded them”’. 

“This therefore ought to be established that they who 
have been taught by the Holy Spirit in their heart, rest 
completely in the Scriptures as being credible on their 
own account and may not subject its truth to argumenta- 
tion and reasonings; inasmuch as they acquire that 
credibility, which they have with us, through the testi- 
mony of the Spirit. For although Scripture through its 
majesty readily procures reverence, it does not seriously 
affect us till it is sealed in our hearts by the Spirit. When 
then we are illumined through His power, we believe that 
the Scriptures are from God, not through our own 
quality or that of others; but, going above human judg- 
ment, we postulate as surer than sure that they flowed 
unto us through the ministry of men from the very 
mouth of God, indeed in no other way than as if we there 
beheld the godhead of God Himself” (Institutes I. 7. 4. 
ye 

The Gallican Confession gives a similar statement : 

“We know these books to be canonical, and the sure 
rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and 
consent of the Church, as by the testimony and inward 
persuasion of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to dis- 
tinguish them from other ecclesiastical books” (Art. IV). 

And the Westminster Confession: 

“We may be moved and induced by the testimony of 
the Church, to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy 

50 


THE PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY 


Scripture ; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy 
of the doctrine, the consent of all the parts, the scope of 
the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full 
discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, 
the many other incomparable excellencies and the entire 
perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abun- 
dantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet 
notwithstanding our full persuasion and assurance of the 
infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the 
inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and 
with the Word in our hearts” (I. 56). 

Of course, the modern mind will hear such language 
with a smile and consider us who accept it as naive. But 
why should this be thought so strange when it is the only 
avenue left open to us through which we can obtain the 
knowledge of the issues of life and eternity, and on an 
authority as high as the Maker thereof and the Ruler 
therein? What is our great hope, our exceeding comfort, 
our final dependence? The answer is so important, that 
at the risk of repetition, we say once more: We have 
actually obtained a revelation from Heaven; this is the 
Holy Scripture; this Scripture is not only a source of 
knowledge to us, but more than that: it is a method — it 
is the axiomatic, the best ground, even as in mathematics 
the axioms are the surest of truths. Thus we have some- 
thing objective before us, sufficient and complete after 
the manner in which God operates; thus we have been 
made acquainted with the mind of God in a way suitable 
to our condition and situation. He that made Heaven 
and all things that in them are, also made every human 
being in His image, with such obligations of service as 
this relationship entails. He furnished him with that 
information which is necessary to make these things 
possible of being discharged. There will therefore be a 

51 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


glorious destiny in store for those who will fall in with 
His holy will, ready to enter into all the wise and sover- 
eign arrangements for meeting God’s glory and man’s 
eternal happiness. For all these things a reliable revela- 
tion is necessary. The Reformed principle of authority 
is the only principle which answers all the conditions. 
Dr. Kuyper has always insisted that any denial of 
revelation robs us of what 1s truly a theology, for theology 
is the science of the knowledge of God, and that is 
nothing unless based upon revelation. Hence he has in- 
sisted that any Liberal scheme of theology so-called is 
really a “philosophy of religion’, thus coordinating all 
religions and making each as authoritative as the next 
one. It is therefore honest that that outspoken Liberal 
Journal “The Christian Century” calls itself “A Journal 
of Religion’. Thus we also read of the “Yale School of 
Religion’. All this is borne out by the pertinent quota- 
tion and remarks of Dr. A. H. Strong in his “A Tour of 
Missions”. We read: “Prof. Kirsopp Lake, in a recent 
address before the Harvard Divinity School, deprecated 
the use of the term “theology”. “Theology”, he said, 
“presupposes divine revelation, which we do not accept”. 
He proposed the term “philosophy’’, as expressive of the 
aim of the Unitarian School. This is honest and plain. 
What shall we say of those who speak of the “new 
emphasis” needed in modern theology, when they really 
mean that the preaching of the old doctrines of sin and 
salvation must give place to “another gospel” of codpera- 
tive Christian work? From their neglect to put any 
further emphasis upon “the faith once for all delivered 
to the saints”, we can only infer that, for their structure 
of doctrine, no other foundation than philosophy is 
needed, and that they, like the Unitarians, no longer 
accept the fact of a divine revelation...... To lay greater 
52 


THE PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY 


emphasis upon the fruits of Christianity than upon its 
roots, is to insult Christ, and ultimately to make Christ- 
ianity itself only one of the many earth-born religions, 
powerless like them either to save the individual soul or 
to redeem society. Professor Lake is quite right: If there 
is no divine revelation, there can be, not only no systema- 
tic theology, but no theology at all. 

“What is the effect of this method upon our theologi- 
cal seminaries? It is to deprive the gospel messenger of 
all definiteness, and to make professors and students 
disseminators of all doubts...... Ask him if he believes 
in the pre-existence, deity, virgin birth, miracles, atoning 
death, physical resurrection, omnipresence, and omnipot- 
ence of Christ, and he denies your right to require of him 
any statement of his own beliefs...... It is no wonder 
that our modern critics cry, “Back to Christ’, for this 
means, ‘““Away from Paul’. The result of such teaching 
in our seminaries is that the student, unless he has had a 
Pauline experience before he came, has all his early con- 
ceptions of Scripture and of Christian doctrine weakened, 
has no longer any positive message to deliver, loses the 
ardor of his love for Christ, and at his graduation leaves 
the seminary ,not to become preacher or pastor as he had 
once hoped, but to sow his doubts broadcast, as teacher in 
some college, as editor of some religious journal, as sec- 
retary of some Y.M.C.A., or as agent of some mutual 
life insurance company...... The theological seminaries 
of almost all our denominations are becoming so infected 
with this grievous error, that they are not so much organs 
of Christ, as they are organs of Antichrist...... 

“What is the effect of this method of interpretation 
upon the churches of our denomination? It is to cut the 
tap-root of their strength, and to imperil their very 
emastence 1) Sin The unbelief in our seminary teaching 

53 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


is like a blinding mist which is slowly settling upon our 
churches, and is gradually abolishing, not only all definite 
views of Christian doctrine, but also all conviction of 
duty to “contend earnestly for the faith’ of our fathers 
RE Pos It is refusal to rally to Christ’s colors in the great 
conflict with error and sin. We are ceasing to be evange- 
listic as well as evangelical, and if this downward 
progress continues, we shall in due time cease to exist” 
(pp. 188 sqq). 

Sufficient light has been shed upon the three great 
principles of authority to bring out the enduring charac- 
ter of the Reformation. As all these principles have in 
greater or lesser degree wrestled for expression in the 
consciousness of the Church, not till the sixteenth century 
have they attained a clearness of development such as 
should no longer cause us to mistake their character. The 
modern view-point is boasted of as a new one. Not so; 
it is but a restatement with greater circumstantiality and 
clearness of what obtained long ago. Even Higher Critic- 
ism is not that recent thing which formerly was unkown. 
Says Bavinck: “In former times criticism of the Scrip- 
tures was not absent. The Gnostics, Manicheans and 
sects of the Middle Ages related to them, tore the New 
Testament from the Old, and ascribed the latter to a 
lower God, the demiurg. Especially Marcion, in his Anti- 
theses, and his pupils, Apelles and Tatian, setting out 
from the Pauline antithesis between righteousness and 
grace, law and gospel, works and faith, flesh and spirit, 
attacked the Old Testament on account of its anthropo- 
morphisms, its contradictions, its immorality, and they 
said that a God who is angry, who repents, who avenges, 
who is jealous, who condones theft and falsehood, who 
comes down, etc., is not the true God. They were very 
particular to point to the great difference between the 

54 


THE PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY 


true Messiah and the Messiah as the Jews expected. 
Marcion threw away all writings of the New Testament 
except those of Luke and Paul, and even these he 
abridged and interpolated. Celsus continued the battle 
in an able manner, and sharply criticized the first chapters 
of Genesis, the days of creation, the creation of man, the 
temptation, the fall, the deluge, the ark, the building of 
the tower of Babel, the destruction of Sodom and Go- 
morrah, Jonah, Daniel, the supernatural birth of Jesus, 
the baptism, the resurrection, and the miracles, and he 
accused Jesus and the apostles of deception. Porphyry 
made a beginning with historical criticism of the books 
of the Bible, he opposed the allegorical exegesis of the 
Old Testament; he ascribed the Pentateuch to Ezra; he 
regarded Daniel as a product from the days of Antiochus ; 
and he subjected many accounts in the Gospels to a 
searching criticism. Nevertheless Scripture attained 
general and undisputed authority, and criticism was for- 
gotten. It revived in the days of the renaissance, but even 
then the Reformation and the Catholic Counter-reforma- 
tion held it up for a time. Presently criticism once more 
revived in Rationalism, Deism, and the French Revolu- 
tion. At first it attacked the contents of Scripture in the 
Rationalism of the eighteenth century; thereafter it at- 
tacked the genuineness of the writings in the historical 
spirit of the nineteenth century. Porphyry took the place 
of Celsus, Renan follows Voltaire, Paulus of Heidelberg 
prepares the way for Strauss and Baur. But the result 
is always the same, Scripture is a book full of error and 
falsehood” (Dogm. I. 317). 

It must then be evident that there is nothing new in 
the Modernist movement. The old serpent of doubt who 
once raised the question, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall 


ae) Beene ”, repeatedly raised his head however often 
| 55 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


abashed. All your vaunted “reconstruction of theology” 
is a barren thing in itself, and also a reversion to the old 
falsehoods: instead of development, it is defimte depar- 
ture from well established foundations. It is revolution. 
What seems new is but a restatement with greater 
circumstantiality and clearness of what was thought long 
ago. Whatever promise of good Modernism shows is like 
the foliage of the tree which has been felled: the shoots 
which it still puts forth are due to some remaining vitali- 
ty, but this is not a testimony favorable to the condition 
of death into which the tree has virtually come. 

And now we have the new movement in America. Our 
country has been blessed above all others with an active, 
evangelical, consecrated Christianity. Its great revivals 
in which the Holy Spirit has worked so mightily, the 
ereat movements of reform, benevolence which has 
astounded the world, foreign misions, yea, countless 
agencies for the amelioration of the lot of the miserable 
— all these are the fruits of the godliness of the Puritan, 
the Knickerbocker, the Huguenot, whose faith was forged 
in the fires of persecution, whose faith rested in the sure 
Word of God witnessed in their hearts by the Holy 
Spirit. Why then has Modernism come in, completely at 
variance with the things which made the fathers strong 
and great? We must not seek the immediate answer in 
the worldliness and materialism of the times, because the 
evil has arisen in the very midst of the ministers of the 
Word. Why then has it arisen there? Dr. Bavinck 
answers as follows: 

pune heroLimaiones 2.00) took its position not in natur- 
AleeaSOiMl pu wns but in the Christian faith...... Which 
rests on God’s authority alone, and is wrought through 
the Holy Spirit. But Protestant theologians have not al- 
ways maintained this principle, and have often turned 

56 


THE PRINCIPLES OF AUTHORITY 


back to the doctrine of a natural theology and of histori- 
cal proofs for the proof of revelation.” Bavinck then 
adverts to the fact that this is the fault in such men as 
Butler, Paley, Chalmers;-A. B. Bruce, McPheeters, etc. 
And he continues: “This has unintentionally contributed 
to emancipate reason from faith, and to locate the dog- 
mata of a natural theology and of the Holy Scriptures 
outsides of the fides salvifica’. With this then as was 
to be expected rationalism put in its appearance in Pro- 
testant Churches” (Dogm. 1. 427). For this reason even 
Dr. C. A. Briggs has characterized the development of 
theology in America as “sickly”. And Prof. Kemper 
Fullerton, of Oberlin, (as we shall point out in our next 
chapter) adverts to conditions which further supports 
such testimony, coming as it does out of the Modernist 
camp itself. 

This situation therefore at once indicates the remedy. 
It is to return to the principles of the Reformation. Had 
our fathers heeded the Latin saying: “‘Principiis obsta”’ 
[withstand the beginnings] much trouble would have 
been avoided. Let us consider our ways and return. 
There is still hope. There is still enough of the saving 
salt of faith. This must not lose its savor. Unless a halt 
is called, the evil of rationalism will run its disastrous 
course, and even Modernists can look on with apprehen- 
sion — if they have eyes to see. 

In a lecture on the New Theology delivered in January 
1887 by my honored instructor in Systematic Theology, 
Prof. N. M. Steffens, D.D., occurs this striking sentence 
which has been in great measure fulfilled, now almost 
forty years after: “I am not a prophet, but I would not 
be surprised if the track in which the New Theology runs, 
will finally lead to an Idealistic Rationalism!” That 1s 
exactly what Modernism is. 

57 


CHAPTER IV 


DIVINE ORIGIN AND UNIQUE CHARACTER 
OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES 


The question of the origin and character of the Holy 
Scriptures is one of great importance. Very much de- 
pends upon it. No wonder that determined controversy 
has raged around this question. On the one hand, frantic 
attempts have been made to demonstrate the reality of 
the Divine revelation: whilst, on the other hand, the 
directly Divine origin of Scripture has been as stoutly 
denied. Difficulty has been experienced in stating clearly 
what constitutes the canonicity of any part of Scripture. 
Says Professor Kemper Fullerton, of Oberlin, in his 
“Prophecy and Authority”: ““While the Post-Reforma- 
tion theologians clung to the doctrine of an infallible 
Scripture, Protestant scholars have followed the lead of 
the Reformation principle of exegesis [which is, that the 
“sense of Scripture was not threefold or fourfold, but 
one, and that this was the grammatico-historical sense”’ 
(p. 117), understood by Fullerton as ruling out any 
deeper lying or mystical meaning by him regularly called 
ralleporizin geen rs In the great battle of the nine- 
teenth century over the higher criticism the fallibility of 
the content was established, and an historical conception 
of the Scripture has been substituted for a dogmatic 
conception. This involves a change in the conception of 
the canon. There is no longer any such thing as an 
infallibly authenticated canon of Scripture” (pp. 186, 
188). | 

53 


DIVINE ORIGIN AND UNIQUE CHARACTER OF SCRIPTURE 


The general situation will appear from the following 
extracts taken from the introductory part of Fullerton’s 
book. ‘Now the settlement of the question of the Bible, 
its nature and authority, is of fundamental importance 
to the life and effective work of the Protestant Churches 
J aaa But there are many indications that the attitude 
of the Churches towards this princtpium of their eccles- 
iastical life is confused, irresolute.’’ This is very true, 
for the reason that the later Protestant Church neglected 
to learn and understand the real Reformation ground for 
the canomcity of the Scriptures. Generally, our American 
theologians reason for the canonicity of Scripture on the 
premises of the liberal — historical criticism; they are 
there compelled to make the best of a very vulnerable 
situation. This is borne out by Fullerton’s statement 
that they largely accepted the results of historical criti- 
cism with the “changed views of its authority which they 
necessitate’. He takes for granted that the results of 
modern research must be accepted, with which, of course, 
the old-time conception of the authority of Scripture falls. 
He continues: “The conviction which prompts to the 
publication of this volume is that Protestants must come 
to terms with itself as to its own principium and frankly 
adopt the results of modern biblical scholarship” (xiv). 
He accurately seizes upon the real point at issue. 
And what does Fullerton think of the old-fashioned 
ground for the authority of Scripture? ‘Now the premise 
of a dogmatic theory of Scripture is an unproved premise. 
Nor has it the quality of an axiom as has often been 
imagined. The testtmonium Spiritus Sancti [testimony 
of the Holy Spirit] which is supposed to apply at this 
point, may apply to the religious content of Scripture, 
but it certainly cannot apply to Scripture as a whole’ 
(pp. xv, xvi). This opinon fails to recognize a distinctly 

59 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


Divine character which attaches to the canonical Scrip- 
tures, and it reckons with the human aspect only. It 
therefore busies itself exclusively with historical criticism, 
which indeed has its legitimate use, but it ignores the 
more important Divine element. Dr. B. Weiss, in his 
“Manual of Introduction to the New Testament’, states 
the matter more correctly in these words: “Only so much 
is clear, that the Criticism which makes Christianity as 
such emerge from the strife and gradual reconciliation 
of the incompatible opposites, and finds in our New 
Testament nothing but memorials of a doctrinal, histor- 
ical process continuing till beyond the middle of the 
second century does away with the idea of a Canon in 
the proper sense of the word” (p. 148). Hence, “histor- 
ical research should rather seek with perfect freedom to 
settle the origin of each individual writing on the basis 
of external and internal evidence. The result of this 
examination will then first suffice to form the foundation 
of a judgment with respect to the traditional Canon. 
But this judgment is equally dependent on the doctrinal 
construction of the conception of the Canon, that is to 
say, on the question whether such construction makes the 
criterion of Canon to consist in that which is genuinely 
apostolic, or in a wider sense memorials of apostolic 
times, attesting each individual writing before the tribunal 
of the religious consciousness of the ancient Church or 
of the present” (pp. 147, 148). It will be noticed that 
the last clause of this quotation virtually recognizes the 
‘testimony of the Holy Spirit’. 

This idea of Canon began to arise in the earliest times, 
somewhat vaguely at first, as could readily be expected. 
Origen is the first to give it some definite expression; 
his main contention has proven to be so correct that it 
practically is the same as that of orthodox Protestant 

| 60 


DIVINE ORIGIN AND UNIQUE CHARACTER OF SCRIPTURE 


writers. Says Weiss: “Origen expressly states that the 
‘Sacred Writings’ of the Old and New Testament are 
the true sources by which Christian doctrine may be 
proved, inasmuch as the sacred books are not ‘mere 
documents’, but were written ‘out of the thinking of the 
PLD WII ODI Gan ecru. Pe. Hence it is necessary to know 
accurately what writings belong to the Scriptura, and 
Origen is the first who lays down a fixed principle in the 
matter, viz., that the ‘first tradition of the Church’ 
(prima et ecclesiastica traditio) must decide, and there- 
fore that only those Scriptures belong to it ‘to which 
every Christian consents and believes’, those ‘which have 
been believed to be sacred in all the churches” (Manual 
maeintreetonthe: Nev be -1. LO 11h). 

This dogmatic conception of the Canon already indicat- 
ed by Origen finds small response to-day, because in 
current discussion the original Protestant line of argu- 
ment has been neglected, and faulty grounds have been 
offered to prove the authority of Scripture. The conse- 
quence is, as Fullerton correctly states, that the “attitude 
of the Churches towards this principium of ecclesiastical 
life is confused, irresolute’’. It is therefore very necessary 
that this confusion and irresolution come to an end on 
the part of evangelical believers. We must give up the 
attempt to prove the Divine origin and unique character 
of Scripture on conventional lines, and we must put it 
back in the wholly exceptional position where it belongs. 
That is to say: We must not establish it by discursive 
reasoning, or base it on certain external criteria, as being 
products of Apostles or of apostolic men: these criteria 
are of subordinate value only. On the contrary, the 
original Protestant principle requires that its Divine 
origin and unique character be attested by the testimony 
of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer, or as Dr. 

61 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


Weiss expresses it, “before the tribunal of the religious 
consciousness”. Our Belgic Confession of Faith thus 
puts it: “We receive all these books, and these only, as 
holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and — 
confirmation of our faith, believing without any doubt 
all things contained in them, not so much because the 
church receives and approves them as such, but more 
especially because the Holy Ghost witnesseth in our hearts 
that they are from God, whereof they carry the evidence 
in themselves” (Art. VI). Hence we must simply main- 
tain the canonicity of the Scriptures as we have them, 
recognized as a matter of fact only by those who are ot 
the Spirit. It cannot be helped that this gives a strongly 
dogmatic cast to the discussion, and savors of apodictic 
assertion. But our opponents, who complain of this, 
forget that they do exactly the same thing: they too 
proceed from premises which are as axiomatic, even 
though they profess to be particularly subject to reason. 
They proceed, namely, from the axiom that human reason 
is competent and self-suffycient to discern and judge ot 
all things, even the deep things of God. While we 
acknowledge that this too is a dogmatic procedure on 
their part, we do not complain of it, since they cannot do 
otherwise — they cannot discern the things of the Spirit. 
And they should allow us the right to build upon our 
own principium. For since principia, like the axioms in 
mathematics, cannot in themselves be the subject of dis- 
cussion with the design of establishing their correctness, 
so the more pertinent thing to do, if we are to reach 
results, is to ascertain which of these divergent principia 
best squares with the experiences of life, of reality. 

At the outset of our discussion it is necessary to bear 
in mind something which radically determines the ques- 
tion at issue; a matter which Fullerton and the like deny, 

62 


DIVINE ORIGIN AND UNIQUE CHARACTER OF SCRIPTURE 


as they rest their theology on a naturalistic basis. We 
refer to the fact of Palingenesis | Regeneration]: its 
presence or absence divides all people into two classes. 
It is a difference which “does not have its origin within 
the province of consciousness, but outside of it. This 
difference is not one of degree but of essence, and is of 
so radical a nature that it cannot be bridged. They face 
the cosmos in a radically different manner and are each 
actuated by altogether different impulses. Mere argument 
is not capable of convincing either for the contrary view. 
Whilst they may agree on the formal aspects of scientific 
research, it is impossible for them to agree on its material 
20) 0 ee a The choice which is made in this aspect 
of things is not determined by discursive reasoning, but 
entirely by the deep impulses of the consciousness. 
Scientific investigation, then, is in its deepest conception 
also determined by this two-fold insight. It is indeed 
possible that some regenerate people may be so deceived 
in their reasoning as to proceed on the naturalistic basis 
whilst retaining the faith which lies hidden in the mystic- 
ism of the heart. It is also true that Palingenesis does 
not at once remove the after-effects of the old un- 
regenerate nature which plays its part in showing a false 
subjectivism which must be patiently overcome...... 
They actually stand in the faith, although they do not 
perceive that their true foundation is gone, and that, 
fortunately, they are acting inconsistently. When they 
become aware of this situation and essay to act according 
to the demands of the reason as based on worldly 
principles they become prone to much confusion and dark- 
ness. Light can break out only then, when they take the 
correct position of Scripture as the. Word of God 
validated by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. But the 
deep-lying principle, given a fair and sufficient occasion, 
63 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


will assert itself one way or the other, so showing its 
real self, and will arrive at perfection” (Kuyper, Encyc. ) 

The province and the competency of the reason in this 
connection must therefore be well understood. When we 
choose in favor of Scripture as our principle of knowl- 
edge as over against the reason, we do not design to 
abdicate the use of our mental faculties in seeking to 
understand the revelation of God, or to pass an opinion 
on its grace and grandeur. That is not the point at issue. 
The precise point is this: The Rationalist derives the 
material, which he chooses to accept for his faith and 
conduct, out of himself; whilst the Reformed derives it 
from an objective source, from a revelation, and he 
holds that Scripture is the revelation. The Reformed 
uses his reason to think about this revelation, to construe 
and assimilate it; whilst the Modernist, in greater or 
lesser degree, manufactures it, so to speak: he is entirely 
subjective, for he determines by his own light and 
according to his own good pleasure what he judges ought 
to be the truth. Bacon has well put it: “The rationalists 
are like the spiders: they spin all out of their own bowels. 
But give me one who like the bee hath a middle faculty, 
gathering from abroad, and digesting that which is 
gathered by his own virtue.” Dr. Thornwell, in quoting 
this from Bacon, correctly remarks that this illustrates 
the Protestant principle. The Reformers believed in an 
objective revelation which man has not himself made nor 
formulated, but he finds himself in the presence of itt, 
and like the bee he is to proceed to make use of it. We 
make use of our reason in connection with passing on 
Scripture as ground for our beliefs and practices, but 
in a secondary way; that is to say, the reason per se does 
not determine what is spiritual truth, but it acts in the 
presence or absence of dispositions and powers of the 

64 


DIVINE ORIGIN AND UNIQUE CHARACTER OF SCRIPTURE 


human spirit. For in our deepest self we are regenerate 
or unregenerate, and inasmuch as the natural man 
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God because they 
are spiritually discerned, the reason in the natural man 
will assume an antagonistic attitude and will not be 
convinced. But he that is spiritual will tind the reason 
perceiving the more clearly the things of the Spirit of 
God. We cannot go back of these prenuses: debating 
back of these 1s but a dead-lock. 

“This fact of the existence of these two classes of 
people, also, strictly speaking, postulates two kinds of 
scientific investigation, because radically different world- 
and life-views underlie each of them. It is this circum- 
stance which particularly affects Christian theology as it 
discusses a range of conceptions which from the nature 
of the case directly concern the things which can be 
spiritually judged only. This fact absolutely denies those 
who stand outside the Palingenesis the competency of 
judging in the premises. 

“Two principia (methods of acquiring knowledge) 
underlie the situation. 1. Man takes knowledge of 
almost everything by bringing the objects before himself 
and proceeding to investigate them. 2. But of God 
he cannot thus obtain knowledge — what he thinks he 
knows through his own agency, is mere guess-work: it 
is necessary that God reveal Himself to man, and man 
can deal only with what is revealed to him. Hence, 
theology is obliged to proceed in a way all her own, as 
she is dependent for her material on what Scripture 
furmshes; whence Scripture as the source of his informa- 
tion imparted by a method in which man is entirely de- 
pendent, is called the principium unicum theologiae” (cf. 
Manoeyes II) secs 32): 

Now Scripture as the revelation of the knowledge of 

65 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


God must be trustworthy. This it can be only when it 
is given by inspiration of God. We believe that Holy 
Scripture as a book before us is the inspired Word of 
God. It will be asked, How do you know this? This 
cannot adequately be answered except that it satisfies the 
believer who is constrained so to receive it; and that 
believer does so receive it, because the Spirit in his heart 
witnesses with his own spirit that he is a child of God 
and that this Scripture is the message of the Holy Spirit 
to him. “The Reformed were led to acknowledge the 
sole authority of the Holy Scripture by the subject matter 
contained in them brought home to their minds and hearts 
by the working of the Holy Spirit. It is the testimony 
of this Spirit whereby they were assured of the sovereign- 
ty of the Bible, in matters of faith’ (Steffens). Of course, 
this cannot be objectively proved, and many scoff at such 
an assertion as mere cant. But Thornwell puts it pointed- 
ly: “The reality of evidence is one thing, the power of 
perceiving it, is quite another. It is no objection to the 
brilliancy of the sun if it fails to illuminate the blind.” 
Scripture attests the very same truth: “For the natural 
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for 
they are foolishness unto him; he cannot know them, 
because they are spiritually judged.”’ In its final analysis 
these things cannot be proven except that the proof con- 
sist in the testimony of the Holy Spirit to our spirit that 
these Scriptures are the Word of God. They are there- 
fore autopistic, as the Reformed principle of the Refor- 
mation so clearly and so necessarily brought out, in order 
to have any real foundation at all. “Just as your person 
through optical processes photographs itself upon the 
plate of the artist, so it is revelation itself which gives 
its own effulgence in Holy Scripture’ (Kuyper). And 
it need not be strange to have recourse to such a principle 

66 


DIVINE ORIGIN AND UNIQUE CHARACTER OF SCRIPTURE 


for the purpose of gaining this particular kind of cer- 
tainty in the unusual realm of spiritual things, because 
we, living as we do more immediately on the natural 
plane, “gain our certainty in regard to material things 
by virtue of a testimony of God the Creator in the 
individual consciousness” (Kuyper). It is far too much 
overlooked that in its deepest analysis the natural man 
in the functioning of his sense-perception even, is as 
dependent upon God as the spiritual man is for saving 
grace. “For in Him we live and move and have our 
being.”” And Jesus said to Nicodemus: “Art thou a 
master in Israel and knowest not these things? Verily, 
verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know. and 
testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 
If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, 
how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” 
(John 3:10—12). 

To throw some more light on this highly important 
matter, we can do no better than to quote the language 
of the late Dr. Herman Bavinck, of the Free University 
of Amsterdam, who was known not only as a widely read 
and able theologian, but also peculiarly well versed in 
the problems of philosophy. He too stresses the ftinda- 
mental contention of the Reformers that Scripture 1s 
autopistic; that is, to be received on its own account. He 
writes: “Holy Scripture is autopistic, and therefore the 
last ground of faith. If you ask, Why do you believe 
Scripture? the only answer is, Because it is the Word 
of God. But if you ask further: Why do you believe 
that Scripture is the Word of God? the Christian must 
remain indebted for the answer, We may indeed refer 
to the characteristics of Scripture, to the majesty of its 
style, etc., but these are not the grounds of his faith: they 
are merely properties and characteristics which in course 

6 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


of time were discovered through believing thought. “God 

has spoken”’ is the prime principle to which all dogmas, 

that of Scripture included, can be led back. The bond 

between the soul and Scripture lies behind consciousness 

and under the proofs. It is mystic in nature in the same 

ee as the deepest DEE Pie of the different sciences 
(Dogmatiek ). 

ee how carefully and pertinently Bavinck sets forth 
the philosophical aspect, of the matter, the following 
quotation shows, in which he touches the vital point at 
issue: ‘““We cannot dispense with the subjective, not in 
a single science. Light postulates an eye. All that is 
objective exists for us simply through the mediation of 
subjective consciousness. In common with all sciences, 
yea, with all relations which obtain between man and 
the world, theology has the subjective starting-point. 
However, the accusation of subjectivism is justified only 
in that case when the subjective organ, which is indispens- 
able for the observation of that which exists objectively, 
1s raised to the principle of knowledge. The eye may be 
indispensable as the organ of observation of light, but 
it is nevertheless not the fountain of light. This is exactly 
the mistake of idealistic rationalism that it identifies the 
organ with the source of knowledge” [My italics]. 

In a similar manner Dr. J. H. Thornwell, that brilliant 
theologian of the South, thoroughly Reformed in his 
views of doctrine and church polity, writes: ““The Protes- 
tant principle is that the truths of the Bible authenticate 
themselves as Divine by their own light. Faith is an 
intuition awakened by the Holy Ghost, and the truth is 
neither known nor believed until it is consciously realized 
by the illuminated mind as the truth of God. Intuition 
does not generate, but it perceives the truth. Reason 
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit appropriates and 

68 


DIVINE ORIGIN AND UNIQUE CHARACTER OF SCRIPTURE 


digests it. The knowledge is immediate and infallible... . 
The Word supplies an external test which protects from 
imposture and deceit. The Spirit educates and unfolds 
a Divine life under the regulative guidance of the Word. 
The Bible and the Spirit are therefore equally essential 
to a Protestant theology’’ (Works, I. 49). Again: 
“Reason, though wholly incapable of discovering the data 
in the free acts of the Divine will, yet when these are 
once given can discern the obligation which naturally 
arise from them. It can discern the fit and becoming tn 
the new circumstances in which we are placed, and it can 
collect, compose and elaborate into scientific unity the 
truths which are brought within its reach. But in no case 
is reason the ultimate rule of faith. No authority can be 
higher than the direct testimony of God, and no certainty 
can be greater than that imparted by the Spirit shining 
on the Word” (Works, [. 50). “The reality of evidence 
is one thing, the power of perceiving it is quite another. 
It is no objection to the brilliancy of the sun that it fails 
to illumine the blind’? (Works, III. 445). 

The reader will perceive that here we come to bed-rock 
conceptions of things where argument and the use of the 
reason to directly establish matters of spiritual import 
will be of no avail. The Rationalist scoffs at the Reform- 
ed conception of things as being obscurantist as he per- 
sists in harping on the same one old string of forcing the 
Divine into human terms and valuations. It cannot be 
done. Kuyper has well expressed it: ““The controversy 
over the reality of inspiration may therefore as well be 
given up, because the consciousness in regard to it stands 
altogether on one line with all our primordial notions, 
as the consciousness of our Ego, of our being, of our 
continuity, of our thought processes, etc. Because these 
things are primordial they are sufficient in themselves, 

69 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


and, allowing of no demonstration, they can neither be 
silenced by contrary argument. And in so far, then, our 
Fathers were entirely correct when they based their con- 
fession of the Scripture on no other testimony than that 
of the Holy Spirit” (Encyc. II. 306, 307). Fullerton 
has this very thing in mind when he characterizes this 
view, which is regarded by us as axiomatic, but is by 
him believed as resting on the imagination for its truth, 
and that its premise is unproved. Indeed, we do not even 
attempt to prove the premise, because along with other 
primordial notions it cannot be done. 

It is therefore a matter of course that “theology pro- 
ceeds on premises which are sui generis. This is owing 
to the fact that both through the history of the Church 
in general and through the testimony of the Holy Spirit 
in the individual a special relation obtains between Scrip- 
ture and the investigator — a relation which in that same 
Scripture is described as a “trembling at the Word of 
God’. The Holy Spirit who gave the Word answers to 
the Holy Spirit dwelling in the heart of the believer. 
This mystical fact may not be lost sight of for a moment. 

Kuyper beautifully describes the blessed matter-of-fact 
of the hidden knowledge of the heart—call it mysticism, 
if you will—which rests in the experience of its own 
assurance after the manner of the blind man who was 
healed by the Savior, and who repelled all doubts by the 
immovable conviction of reality: “Whether he be a 
sinner or not, I do not know: one thing I know, that, 
whereas I was blind, now I see!” Says Kuyper: “A 
Christian lives by the Scriptures and serenely enjoys this 
life. The studies which examine the Scriptures by which 
the Christian lives, do not determine this life: they can 
only elucidate the existing phenomena. Thus, a man’s 
breathing through his lungs does not begin by permission 

70 


DIVINE ORIGIN AND UNIQUE CHARACTER OF SCRIPTURE 


of the scientist who studies their actions, but he breathes 
as a matter of fact. Now canonical studies can give this 
living by the Word a purer direction, if only this living 
by Scripture remain our point of departure in its historico- 
mystical sense. Hence the object of canonical studies can 
never determine for anyone what constitutes Scripture. 
For the heart of every believer and for the Church as a 
whole Scripture 1s what she is not as the result of study, 
but as a result of historical and spiritual-mystical factors. 
Canonical study can only interpret some things as far as 
these do not remain hidden in the depths of mysticism” 
CEnevye, ITI.«25,.26);. 

But there is a very practical, matter-of-fact proof 
which amply justifies these seemingly esoteric positions. 
Kuyper again indicates it: “After the manner of the 
correlation of the pieces of a dissected map, or of the 
members of an organism, so the correlation of the parts 
of Scripture (canon) is indicated by inspiration in the 
nature of these parts themselves. But just as a child does 
not immediately get an idea of the full and correct 
arrangement of the pieces of a dissected map, and at first 
is apt to make mistakes and only in course of time arrives 
at certainty, so also the eye of the Church has in the 
course of time begun to perceive the canonical connection ~ 
of the parts of Scripture to that extent that with full 
assurance of mind she has observed in it the certain in- 
dication of the Holy Spirit’ (Dict. Dogm. De Sacra 
Scr. 86, 87). 

“As a matter of fact Scripture has come into existence 
under the operation partly of spiritual factors, partly of 
historical factors whether human or divine, and as the 
product of these factors Scripture became the possession 
of the Church: it was not given mechanically, but organ- 
ically. Even though men deliberated and considered, they 


7 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


were, unbeknown to themselves under the guidance of 
the Holy Spirit. So that at bottom of this all rules 
the providence of God, who, throughout every form of 
human activity gave His Word to the world, the written 
‘kanow [rule, or, standard of measurement and com- 
parison | even as He Himself is the Personal ‘Kanon’ 
for man” (Kuyper). 

That the Reformed do full sasiite to the human aspects 
of these matters is thus brought out by Steffens: “Our 
formal principle does not extinguish in us the historical 
spirit; on the contrary, nowhere is this spirit found in a 
healthier state than in the loyal sons of the Reformed 
Church. We desire to stand everywhere on a solid histor- 
ical foundation. But when Higher or Newer Criticism 
degenerates into an arbitrary reconstruction of history, 
when we are called upon to remove a huge pyramid from 
its base and try to put it on its apex, we stand aloof from 
such a foolish and hopeless undertaking. And when the 
critics of our age demand from us to look upon the 
prophets of old as enemies of the ceremonial law teaching 
us by their doctrines and examples to eliminate from 
what they call the “genuine religion of the Old Testa- 
ment’’, not merely the ritual but also the atoning signifi- 
cance of the sacrifices, the Theology of Blood; or when 
they ask us to look upon the priests and Levites as 
hypocritical formalists and bigots, who tsed_ their 
position and religious influence in the interests of the 
State; then we feel it our duty to enter our protest against 
such a destructive radicalism, and to raise our banner— 
the sovereign authority of the Holy Scriptures—in the 
interest of Bible truth. In upholding this banner let us 
be willing to bear the ignominy of being called unscien- 
tific and fanatical.” 

How then in short are we to conceive of the Canon? 

72 


DIVINE ORIGIN AND UNIQUE CHARACTER OF SCRIPTURE 


Let Kuyper again answer: ““The idea then of the Canon 
is not according to what notion men of the Church 
decided what should belong to Scripture, but according 
to the thought which God has Himself, and which He 
gets brought out in Scripture. And under the guidance 
of the Holy Spirit the Divine will comes to man through 
the instrumentality of the Scriptures...... It must be 
added that the assembling of the books of the Bible did 
not occur as a result of immediate inspiration, but as the 
result of the enlightened consciousness of believers whose 
spiritual feelings began to recognize more and more 
clearly what is Scripture. Such it was with the Canon 
of the Old Testament, and Christ sanctioned this collec- 
tion as the Word of God.” 

Fullerton notes the interesting fact that Clement of 
Alexandria and Origen already in that early age half 
unconsciously stood on the foundation of the correct 
view of the principle of the Canon (from the orthodox 
standpoint). ““They had a supreme confidence in the self- 
sufficiency of Scripture. It was its own interpreter. Its 
great Christian truths were self-authenticated to the 
spiritually illuminated. All that was necessary to do was 
to elaborate the technique of the allegory in order to 
possess the key to all biblical mysteries. And this Origen 
did. He sought to place the allegory on a scientific basis”’ 
(“Proph. and Authority’”’, p. 80). Says Kuyper : “Origen 
and they who came after him may have come short in 
the elaboration of this idea, nevertheless the principle 
from which they proceeded stands high on account of its 
intrinsic truth above the insipid flatness of narrow-minded 
interpreters who cannot believe in the mystical element 
which is back of the written word” (Encyc. III. 160). 

“These Scriptures do not lie loose beside the theologian 
but in the mysticism of his heart he knows himself bound 

73 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


to them and to its authority with a special bond which 
nothing can break. For him the drawing of this bond 
is not the result of scientific investigation: he even denies 
to science the competency of judging in regard to the 
reality of this mystical bond. This bond to Scripture is 
imwoven with the life of the soul, and he asks leave of 
science to have it so as little as he asks the permission of 
science to breathe.”’ 

“It 1s admitted that the approach of the believer to 
Scripture as he accepts its authority in advance is a prej- 
udiced one. But for the other it is just as true that he 
is prejudiced in favor of the authority of the reason, of 
the common opinion of the doctors, and for him it can 
never lie in Scripture as such. Scripture itself compels 
this alternative. Just because it places itself antithetically 
over against the vox mundi, the investigator must either 
honor the vox Dei or deny it. No one can stand neutral 
over against Scripture. It is a canonical investigation for 
him who bows to the authority of Scripture; and anti- 
canonical to the other. In both cases the investigator is, 
before he begins his work, predisposed as to the matter 
in the center of his consciousness one way or the other. 
Tf one lives by virtue of the Palingenesis, then the 
mysticism of the heart will correspond with these Scrip- 
tures; but 1f one lives outside of the Palingenesis and 
hence out of a sinful nature, then the mysticism of the 
heart will stand antithetically over against the mysticism 
of Scripture. When people have received a good educa- 
tion, then out of that mysticism of the heart will come a 
two-fold world- and life-view, each in principle diverse 
from the other; the one postulating Scripture, and the 
other, having no room for it, will attempt to eliminate it. 
Every attempt to convince the latter by means of argu- 
ment must be given up as completely as when Jesus 


74 


DIVINE ORIGIN AND UNIQUE CHARACTER OF SCRIPTURE 


forebore to convince the Sanhedrin to the contrary when 
they had firmly made up their mind that he was a 
blasphemer.”’ 

‘The task of the exegesis of Scripture is by no means 
ended with an inquiry as to what the writer may himself 
have: thought to write. In her Bible the Church does not 
possess a collection merely of literary products, for the 
Church is not a literary or historical society, but she is 
the gathering of believers who lay hold on eternal life. 
Vo this end she received Scripture as a means of grace, 
and in order that Scripture should be such, it came into 
existence and was completed as a Divine work of art 
with the unity of functioning which characterizes a living 
organism. It is so rich a Divine work of art and is 
designed so marvelously that throughout all ages the 
Church might be edified by it, and that the ministry of 
the Word might find out of these Scriptures the solution 
of every question. Hence, back of the literary and gram- 
matical meaning there also obtains a deeper lying mystical 
one. Origen and others after him have failed in correctly 
working out this idea, but the idea has far more of 
inherent value than the insipid prosaic, interpretation of 
rationalizers which naturally begets spiritual aridity” 
jencye. LiL 100). 

The mystical interpretation has always invited attack, 
and to-day Modernist Theology does this with new vigor. 
Fullerton’s book is courageous in assuming the full con- 
sequences of his premises, so that he rejects plenary 
inspiration, and prophecy of every kind, and leaves a 
very uncertain and indefinite basis for the very uncertain 
thing which he makes of Christianity. With the Divine 
origin and unique character of Holy Scripture gone, we 
may well cry out in despair: “What is Christianity?’ — 
the very question on which thousands have to-day become 

75 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


unsettled. The Reformed principle of authority which 
determines the divine origin and unique character of 
Scripture is the only thing which will put a 
solid foundation under the tottering structure 
of historical Christianity. 


76 


CHAPTER V 


A CONCRETE EXAMPLE OF MODERNIST 
THEOLOGY 


In order to show how in concrete form the Rationalist 
principle of authoritv works out, we shall examine an 
address delivered in St. Aldates, Oxford, England, by 
Canon E. W. Barnes on “Authority in Religion’’. This 
address is an able one and thoroughly characteristic of 
Modernism. In fact, folks were so much taken up with 
it that the address appeared both in Christian Work and 
in The Christian Century. As this address turns on the 
‘foundations of religious belief, and raises the issue be- 
tween the Reformed conception of authority and that 
of Modernism, now unhappily becoming so prevalent, 
and which is bewitching the minds of those who ought 
to know better, it is well that our Reformed ministers 
and the laity have an opportunity to carefully examine 
the matter. Very vital matters are at stake, even the very 
integrity of Reformed theology. Modernism will undo 
the great gain which the Reformation brought, and will 
plunge us into chaos. It is very easily possible that many 
a bewildered soul will, like Cardinal Newman, finally 
find refuge in the Church of Rome. When, as in the case 
of the Cardinal, the first principles of the Reformed 
authority are not understood, the logic of events readily 
leads unto Rome or else to the other extreme, 
Agnosticism. 

That we are not painting too dark a picture became 
very evident from an Editorial in The Christian Century 

77 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


of Jan. 3, 1924, entitled: “Fundamentalism and Modern- 
ism: Two Religions’. With sharp discrimination that 
article correctly sizes up the situation. It asks: “Or are 
the fundamentalists right in claiming that the issue is a 
grave one, going to the roots of religious conviction and 
involving the basic purpose and almost the genius of 
Christianity itself?’’ 

It continues: ““A candid reply to such inquiries must 
be one of agreement with the fundamentalist claim. It 
is to be doubted that the average churchman whose sym- 
pathies are in the main with modernism has any adequate 
appreciation of the sharpness and depth of the issue..... 
that they are foundation differences, structural differ- 
ences, amounting in their radical dissimilarity almost to 
the differences between two distinct religions...... Two 
world-views, two moral ideals, two sets of personal 
attitudes have clashed, and it is a case of ostrich-like 
intelligence blindly to deny and evade the searching and 
serious character of the issue...... Which is the truer 
Christian religion, is the question that is to be settled...” 

The article concludes: “It is not merely the aggressive- 
ness of fundamentalism that is forcing a choice, it is the 
inherent nature of the issue itself. Two worlds have 
crashed, the world of tradition and the world of modern- 
ism. One is scholastic, static, authoritarian, individual- 
istic; the other is vital, dynamic, free, social.”” To abbre- 
viate: “The God, the Christ, the Bible, the church, the 
kingdom, the salvation, the consummation of all things— 
these are one thing to the fundamentalists, and another 
thing to modernists.” 

This is honestly spoken and fearlessly avowed. We 
shall now turn to Canon Barnes’ address to see how 
correct it all is. 

Canon Barnes raises the question: “Can we be content 

78 


A CONCRETE EXAMPLE OF MODERNIST THEOLOGY 


with the idea of an infallible book or an infallible formula 
or an infallible institution? If not, how can we find 
religious certainty amid the modern chaos of religious 
opinion?’’ You see, the Canon acknowledges the existence 
of a chaos: that acknowledgment on his part forebodes 
ill. But the common people are not aware of the situation 
and its tendencies, and without accounting for continuing 
to hold what they have, are neither inquiring for the 
grounds thereof. If they did, they might be shaken in 
mind so much as also to lose the foundations of whatever 
good they have, and the chaos would truly become 
appalling. It is imperative therefore to look a little into 
the foundations on which the fathers stood, and to show 
the nature of the shifting quicksand on which the 
Modernist banks so much. 

The issue appears when the Canon asks the question: 
“But the mere suggestion of religious evolution raises the 
inquiry whether Christianity can be rightly regarded as 
a special revelation of God to men. Are there elements 
in it which are definite and final? If so, what are they, 
and how are they guaranteed? We are confronted by the 
problem of authority.” 

Here, then, are three questions. How does the Canon 
proceed to answer them? In beginning to answer these 
questions he is not very clear, and we will simply remark, 
that while there is development in Christian doctrine, as 
all agree, results have been reached thus far which are 
by no means negligible; that is to say, much doctrine has 
been pretty well crystallized, so much so, that new develop- 
ments are largely a matter of detail. These elaborations 
of doctrine, while not claiming absolute infallibility, are 
nevertheless, we most confidently believe, made in the 
right direction: again and again they have been subjected 
to the test of Scripture with no other result. However, 


79 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


the Modernist proceeds under another principle which 
obtained in more or less degree from the beginning of 
the Christian era, and what he tries to do under the 
beautiful name of development (or evolution) is simply 
degeneration, or better still, reversion to type. So-called 
“reconstruction of theology” is not development, but 
a revival of heresy. These modern developments are of 
a revolutionary character: they break with all real Chris- 
tianity, for its real foundations are made to hang in the 
air, as will be shown further along. 

Half way the article the Canon states what he intends 
to prove, viz.: “Why he cannot find in the visible church, 
or in any branch of it, authoritative basis of Christian- 
ity.” We will not quarrel with this, although something 
can be said in favor of this particular matter. More to 
the point just now is what follows: “Can we find it in 
the Bibler’”’ Canon Barnes says he would answer: ‘‘Yes’’, 
and “No”. He calls it a “short-cut to authority’ when 
we postulate an “infallible, inerrant Bible’. We answer: 
It 1s a short-cut to authority of a far worse order to 
postulate human reason with its well-known prejudices 
and its infinite variety of subjective viewpoints. Then, 
to prove his point, the Canon proceeds to argue the mis- 
takes in the Bible, on which part we need not spend any 
time now, since the great principle underlying it all is of 
prime and immediate concern. 

An important sentence then follows: ‘Science and 
scholarship are a gift of the Holy Spirit of truth.’ Now, 
while there is some truth in this assertion, it has a very 
dangerous side to it. The statement is equivocal. To 
begin with. Science and scholarship are by no means 
infallible on physical questions. They have constantly 
corrected themselves. Further, man with his sinful nature, 
so easily biased, will not always see clearly on moral 

80 


A CONCRETE EXAMPLE OF MODERNIST THEOLOGY 


matters. What then must we say in regard to their 
reliability of judgment on spiritual matters, which lie on 
a still higher plane? Can we expect the Holy Spirit to 
reveal much to the mere man of science, since we read: 
“For no prophecy ever came by the will of man; but men 
spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit’ (1 
Peter 1:21)? And these men have a special quality; but 
on the other hand, “the natural man receiveth not the 
things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto 
him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritual- 
ly judged” (1 Cor. 2:14). We conclude then that the 
_Canon’s opinion that “science and scholarship are the 
gifts of the Holy Spirit of truth” is an expression of 
great relativity and helps us out very little in the question 
at issue. That expression, strictly speaking, deals only 
with the formal aspect of the matter, and even there its 
import is unreliable; how much the less, then, can it be 
of avail on the material side of the matter which is the 
very point at issue? We can by no means trust mere 
science and scholarship as a ground for spiritual matters. 
To be sure, science, scholarship and the Modernist have 
made the strong claim that they are the “thinking part of 
humanity’, that the others are the “left-overs’, the 
“obscurantists’’, “hopelessly behind the times’’, etc. They 
are welcome to these opinions; still, we do not trust them. 
Real need will not down: it cries for revelation. We 
want to know what God has to say, and therefore we will 
not listen to the bewildering variety of subjectively con- 
ceived ideas. 

And even Canon Barnes comes down to this. He feels 
that after all there must be some objective basis of 
authority, for he immediately follows his previous quiz- 
zical views with: “But none the less, on the Bible we base 
our faith.” We are very glad to read this; but how does 

81 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


the Canon do it? In comes the rationalistic principle that 
the human reason determines this. “In the Bible’, he 
says, ‘“‘we find a revelation of God’s nature and purpose 
which is the most reasonable that we can conceive.” This. 
we also believe, but the Canon develops the idea in such 
a manner as to make man’s judgment decide what shall 
be believed. And how he*can speak of a revelation from 
God, and then set up his own tests of deciding whether 
it is this, whereby he himself is really furnishing the 
contents of this revelation, we do not understand. 

The question, On what Modernists base their faith? 
he answers thus: “Its basis is the Bible interpreted in 
the light of modern knowledge. In our sacred books we 
find among the Jews the growth of unrivaled spiritual 
perception culminating in the life and message of Jesus 
the(Ghrist ona: 3 The only religious authority which is 
ultimately cogent for us is the witness of the Spirit of 
Christ, a witness which is primarily within ourselves... . 
The Church will preserve all that is essential in the — 
Christian revelation so long as its ultimate authority is 
the response of the spirit of man to the divine orn of 
truth and reason.’ 

On its face this passage professes belief in: 1. The 
life and message of Jesus the Christ; 2. The Holy Spirit 
who witnesses; and 3. The Christian revelation. 

The language as we have given it would hardly indicate 
anything else than that the Modernist believes these 
points. But, as a matter of fact, does he? 

In examining these three points we will begin with the 
last one. What does Canon Barnes mean by “the Christian 
revelation’? The Reformed view of revelation is an 
ohjective communication of truths not known before and 
which was brought to the mind from without by the Holy 
Spirit. But such is not the Modernist view. The differ- 

82 


A CONCRETE EXAMPLE OF MODERNIST THEOLOGY 


ence is well expressed by Archbishop Trench: “God's 
revelation of Himself is the drawing back of the vail or 
curtain which concealed Him from man; not man finding 
out God, but God discovering Himself to man.’’ Now 
what does Canon Barnes say? “In our sacred books we 
find among the Jews the growth of unrivaled spiritual 
perception culminating in the life and message of Jesus 
the Christ.” Note, that he says nothing of a divine 
communication, but he speaks of a process: it is “spiritual 
perception”; a matter of understanding : sub jective, there- 
fore. Sometime after the Stone Age it must have had a 
beginning, and that, we would say, through mental 
spontaneous generation. This, too, more or less every- 
where amongst all nations, because all have religious 
ideas. Whilst all men in every region on earth had 
“spiritual perceptions”, among the Jews their growth 
was “unrivalled”. But what needs to be carefully noted 
is this, that this is not revelation properly so-called. This 
is human opinion; it is subjective; it has no more 
authority than as each individual person may choose to 
regard it. And the consequences of taking any, whichever 
it be, are negligible. All these men — they may have 
ever so much genius — simply look out to the Unknown 
God which their own fancy may have made. They “are 
feeling after” this Unknown One in order to discover 
Him. The poor Athenian philosophers whom Paul 
addressed, did the same thing in their lack of oppor- 
tunities: but they could not help themselves. However, 
this is so gratuitous now: the Modernist is throwing 
away golden opportunities. It is the saddest thing which 
the angels have had to witness for ever so long a time. 
The Modernist with all his learning has fallen back upon 
the old pagan basis of “feeling after Him if haply he 
may find Him’’! What folly has come to possess these 
&3 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


learned men! And if they use the word revelation in 
designating their religious perceptions they are not using 
it honestly. They cover a sort of agnosticism with a 
phrase which conveys something different than they really 
mean. It is a pitiful attempt thus to hide spiritual poverty 
of perception and cover lack of foundations. 
Furthermore, it sounds gracious to make the acknowl- 
edgment that this “spiritual perception was culminating 
among the Jews in Jesus the Christ’. But now, ask the 
Modernists, What think ye of Christ ? Whose Son is He? 
Their answer gives it all away. He is the son of Mary 
and of a human father. True, he had genius; he had fine 
religious sensibilities. In addition to the traditions under 
which his first ideas took form, in addition to the great 
thoughts and feelings by which other prophets before 
him had been stirred, Jesus made an advance which made 
him “unrivalled”. But what does even that avail? The 
Bible as such not being infallible authority, Canon Barnes 
asks, whether some one in it is? “Is then Jesus our 
infallible authority? In reply I ask the question, What 
do you mean by infallible authority?” The Canon in 
answering his own question then offers some remarks 
invading even the Savior’s reliability. 
_ How serious all this is becomes evident when you 
consider that the Modernist in his effort to find solid 
ground has already discounted Paul’s ideas as being 
rabbinistic and philosophical, and similarly something is 
unreliable in all the other writers. This has made them 
raise the cry: “Back to Christ’. But where are we when 
even the reliability of Christ is not above reproach? And 
The Christian Century goes Canon Barnes one better 
because that paper deletes one sentence of the Canon’s, 
namely this one: “(Nowadays we see in the Bible a new 
light, but from that light there emerges, brilliant in 
84 


A CONCRETE EXAMPLE OF MODERNIST THEOLOGY 


majesty, Jesus the eternal Christ.” But even then does 
not Canon Barnes make of Christ a glittering generality 
in saying also: “It is on his perfection of moral and 
spiritual understanding that we base our faith.” Because 
he follows this beautiful expression with something 
which again shows the virus of rationalism: ‘And yet 
we must not take Jesus as a purely external authority, 
eveumiiigtiisirealtm.... .% Christ must be an authority 
within yourself. You must seek to make your own spirit 
respond to the divine spirit of truth and righteousness. 
You must bring all knowledge you can get, the finest 
emotions of your being, to your search for fellowship 
with the Unseen. Then you will find that the spirit 
within you is a witness to God, as He was revealed in 
Jesus the Christ. Faith is not submission to authority: 
it is the result of consecrating thought, will and feeling. 
It 1s the product of yourself at your best.’’ This quotation 
is very characteristic. It indicates the subjectivism of 
Modernism with considerable haziness of definition of 
object. Who is Jesus? Yes, we all agree he is a historical 
personage. But does the Modernist accept the account 
of him as given in the four Gospels—the only account 
available? No, they regard these as giving the impressions 
of the Apostles in regard to their Master in which un- 
reliable and untrue elements were introduced. What then 
Jesus actually was, is made out by the judgment of the 
Modernist: they have all the competency; the “best spirit 
within you” is authority. This at once destroys the idea 
of revelation, properly so-called. All rests upon knowledge 
of what man finds himself to be and wants to make of 
things. This digs an impassable gulf between the 
Reformed conception of authority and Modernism. It 
practically makes two religions as The Christian Century 
has admitted. Whoever therefore loves the Reformed 
Ps 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


Church and its time-tried principles founded upon reali- 
ties, needs to avoid this rank poison of Modernism which 
is an arbitrary construction of some historical facts, but 
generally so construed as to eliminate very vital elements 
of what constitutes true Christianity. 

The Canon then proceeds actually to bring in things 
objective. ‘‘Faith begins in the response of your nature 
to the all-pervading Spirit of God. He witnesses to 
Christ.’”” What does the Canon mean in these assertions ? 
Does he refer to the Third Person of the Trinity? We 
doubt it. To him it is probably only a handy philosophical 
conception to designate influence. He employs the terms 
of Scripture and tradition to set forth a sort of Panthe- 
ism. Many an unsophisticated Isaac will say of it: “The 
voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands and the smell are 
Esau’s.’’ One thing is said, another really meant. In a 
large sense Modernists hold Christian doctrines while at 
the same time they reject the basis of their validity. And 
to establish what? We answer with Shakespeare: 


“And give to airy nothings 
A local habitation and a name.” 


For how this vague ‘‘Spirit of Christ”? witnesses to Christ 
is another expression of hazy content as vague as it is 
meaningless. The phraseology of Christianity furnishes 
merely a terminology for subjective ideas, useful too as 
having in part awakened those ideas. Now, if “religion 
is communion with the Unseen” and that the “best in us” 
expresses it, what need have we of a Christ whose 
existence hangs in the air? And what does it profit us 
to have an “all-pervading Spirit” to “witness” to such a 
Christ? There 1s an isolation about this Christ which can 
bring no comfort as its barrenness of results in saving the 
lost proves its falseness. For what objective realities 


3 
85 


A CONCRETE EXAMPLE OF MODERNIST THEOLOGY 


have we thus? How will you determine truth from a 
thousand differing subjectivities who are not feeling 
alike? And for what purpose? We flounder in the depths 
of a bottomless mysticism in so viewing things. Under 
the principle assumed by Canon Barnes terms have little 
distinctive value. Buddhism will furnish very nearly the 
same thing. Why Christ’s character and influence should 
have any more “dynamic” than Buddha’s we fail to see; 
neither why it should not have just as much “authority”. 
Doubts are actually being raised in Modernist circles 
relative to the necessity of Foreign Missions. Careful 
direction of the cultural instincts of the heathen will do 
as much. The Canon’s idea of religion means nothing 
more than that a quality which lies wholly within man 
rouses itself to noble action. This is Naturalism. It 1s 
akin to the baldest Socinianism. This judgment of ours 
is confirmed by what follows in the Canon’s article: “But 
you find Christ’s influence reflected whenever men inspire 
you with enthusiasm and love for wisdom and goodness.” 
When he calls it a “living power to which you give 
allegiance”, he is using a figure of speech in the way he 
means it. In literal fact he means to say that the ideals 
connected with Christ react upon people by virtue of 
what these Bie are in themselves. And when the Canon 
deprecates “coercive mechanism of formula and system” 

and “external claims’ and “a book”’ or “a formula’, he 
misapprehends the Reformed position. The Reformed 
idea is not that these externals are a number of magical 
things which effect something ex opus operato, but they 
are the objective realities which place the spiritual facts 
before us. When then the Third Person of the Trinity 
(who works where, and when, and how He will) applies 
them to us, He does so indeed in a manner inscrutable to 
us, since He works in and upon us.as free moral agents. 

87 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


Yea more, the connection between the Divine and the 
human is but faintly understood by us, but there is such 
direct connection. This the rationalist virtually denies. 
But in the perceptions and operations of the spirit of man 
the objective facts of revelation have a dynamic place. 
Hence, ‘‘the book”’ is not merely a book; and our doctrines 
are not merely “external formulas” ;but all these are the 
facts on which the Holy Spirit and the spirit of man react 
on each other. And while “the true life of the spirit is 
life in Christ’’, let it be emphatically understood that this 
must come in connection with the wealth of fact revealed 
by the Spirit of Truth in His own Book. The Spirit of 
God, the Word of Scripture and the spirit of man are a 
trinity whose interrelations of operation are almost as 
inscrutable as those which obtain in the Adorable Trinity 
of the Godhead. The Modernist, with all his claim to 
superior insight, is blinded by the dust of a senseless, 
soulless naturalism when he places the operations of 
spiritual forces in a self-centered self. Needs can be filled 
only by things which have objective reality, and those in 
the spiritual world have vital connection through the 
Spirit of God intimately related to the spirit of the believ- 
Star tety Rom..8 19.016) #23," 26;92 7, etc.) bhrousheena 
enlightening and warming power of the Holy Spirit there 
obtains a mysterious satisfaction and exhilaration through 
such cardinal beliefs as that in God, Maker of Heaven 
and earth; in Jesus Christ, the Person who of necessity 
was not entirely of human formation, who lived on earth, 
who died for our sins, who rose from the dead and 
ascended to Heaven, and is now seated as a Living One, 
like unto us except that he is glorified, on the Right Hand 
of God the Father Almighty and there maketh inter- 
cession for us sinners; who sent the Holy Spirit, a Person. 
definitely, objectively real, the Comforter, who has access 
88 


A CONCRETE EXAMPLE OF MODERNIST THEOLOGY 


to our hearts and witnesses to Christ in the fulness of 
his atoning work wherein are taken up all these doctrines 
which give meaning to that work. He witnesses in a very 
much different way than Canon Barnes would have us 
believe. By that Holy Spirit the revelation of divine 
things was given, the Holy Scriptures, which are not of 
any “private interpretation’, not bubbling up from within 
ourselves the best we have, but “holy men of God spake 
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21). 
It is of this self-same Scripture that Christ spoke, the 
man whom the Modernist holds up as their ideal, as their 
only authority: “Ye search the Scriptures, because ye 
think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they 
which bear witness of Me” (John 5:39). This book 
somehow, in spite of its human dress, has life: the things 
mentioned in it accomplish real effects in man. It is true 
of the Written Word as well as of the Spoken Word, 
that it is “quick and powerful, and sharper than any two- 
edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of 
soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a 
discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart’ (Heb. 
4:12). In sum, when we argue for the Book we argue 
for that which, in a sense, is an external matter (God 
too is an external entity), but this external book, Holy 
Scripture, is truth and life, and the heart regenerated by 
the Holy Spirit lives by it and rejoices in it with a joy 
unspeakable and full of glory. 

From another article of Canon Barnes, entitled “Are 
Jesus’ Teachings Final?’ and which appeared in The 
Christian Century of April 26, 1923, we will give quota- 
tions, without comment: 

“Jesus took the system of Jewish religious thought, 
modified and developed it, and left upon it the impress 
of his own spiritual genius. The faith which resulted 

80 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


proved able to assimilate some of the most valuable 
speculations of Greek philosophers.”’ 

“Let us now pass to the teaching of Jesus and see how - 
far in the light of modern thought it remains the best 
interpretation of the spiritual intuitions of humanity. 
Two facts must be borne in mind. The first and signally 
important, is that the teaching of Jesus was conjoined 
with, was in fact a part of, a singularly complete and 
self-consistent personality.” 

“But in the second place it must be remembered that 
we do see Jesus with other men’s eyes. They have 
preserved what to them was especially striking........ 
The sayings will at times be colored by their ideas; the 
incidents will combine recollection with interpretation— 
probably the sayings represent our Lord’s words with 
more accuracy than we might expect.” 

‘And yet, on the other hand, there are passages in all 
the first three gospels—notably the ‘little apocalypse’, 
Mark 13 and its parallels—there are these passages where 
we miss the peculiar quality of thought and expression 
that we find in the sermon on the mount and elsewhere. 
In such passages, and also in what I may call the eccles- 
iastical passages of St. Matthew, we must be prepared 
to find that Christ’s own words have been combined 
with alien ideas.”’ 

“And, similarly, we must be cautious in dealing with 
the narratives.”’ 

“Many still think it a loss to have to admit that in 
the fourth gospel we have, not a record of Christ’s own 
teaching, but a meditative interpretation of his life and 
Workin. «t We can for ourselves make the transition 
made by St. Paul and St. John from the Jesus of history 
to the eternal Christ. We have learned thereby to find 
the spiritual in the natural, the divine in the human.” 

90 


A CONCRETE EXAMPLE OF MODERNIST THEOLOGY 


“The idea that Christ was inerrant is widely held by 
those who would be orthodox, but it is heretical.’’ 

“Thus, as it seems to me, our ethical convictions lead 
us still to Christ’s theology. Turn to the teachings of 
Jesus and see with what unerring insight he made good- 
Hessmceiiiral. i. shis* teaching’). /.2% @: The crown of 
evolutionary process, as described by modern science, 1s 
the ethical progress of man.” 

God deliver us from the menace of Modernism, for it 
will bring about anarchy in religion and morals. Such 
is the bias of the natural heart towards evil, and such 1s 
man’s unreliability, that we need the discipline of a 
definite expression of the Divine will with its penalty 
on transgression. This is not “mere mechanism’, for 
God addresses Himself to moral agents. Let us not find 
fault with coercion; there must be coercion in its place 
where the Divine will meets rebellion. This is as vital in 
religion as the Constitution of the United States of 
America is vital to our national existence. “This is 
eternal life, to know God and Jesus Christ whom He has 
sent.” To refuse Him must necessarily entail serious 
consequences. This is objective reality, and we must be 
ready to believe and obey according to His Law of equity 
in the premises. In this way the Canon’s assertion can 
be true: ‘the true life of the spirit is the life in Christ.” 
But there must be a perfect correspondence of conditions. 
Modernism is far from “putting spiritual things first’’ 
(as the Canon would have us believe), but he ts putting 
empty ideas first, and its satisfactions are the imagina- 
tions of a self-centered heart. Modernism has never been 
a power of God unto salvation: it is barren of spiritual 
conquest. It is blight upon the Churches to-day. It is 
killing missionary work. And its logical outcome can 
be no other eventually than agnosticism and irreligion. 

ot 


CHAPTER VI 
THE CRITICISM OF THE SCRIPTURES 


It was a painful experience to me recently to read 
William Newton Clarke’s “Sixty Years with the Bible’’. 
This book is written in an able and engaging manner; it 
is honest and earnest; nevertheless we cannot forbear to 
regard it is distinctly harmful to Christianity. Dr. Clarke 
circumstantially describes by decades the development of 
his beliefs regarding the Bible, a course which to the 
orthodox can only be a slow but sure departure from the 
truth. Says Dr. Clarke: “Many, too, are wondering 
whether they shall be compelled to go, and are looking 
with alarm on the perils that beset the way. Very many 
are pitying those who have been compelled to set forth. 
Is it possible, these inquirers ask, for a man to make this 
change with regard to the Bible without losing his faith, 
not to say his soul?...... Can there possibly be any 
leading of the Spirit of truth in the experience? Is it 
not a wandering on the dark mountains without a 
guide?” (4, 5). 

Dr. Clarke beautifully describes the sweet and reverent 
Christian atmosphere of his home. “My earliest remem- 
brance of it brings up the picture of family worship. 
How clear it is, and how calm and beautiful! There were 
five of us—father, mother, and three children, of whom 
I was the second. In the morning, not before breakfast, 
but after it, we all sat down with Bibles in our hands, 
and read in turn three verses apiece... ... In this manner 
day by day the Bible was read through... .. The reading 


O2 


THE CRITICISM OF THE SCRIPTURES 


was followed by solemn prayer, all kneeling...... The 
mental atmosphere of which I was conscious was one of 
solemnity and reverence...... It was assumed, and to 
me was real, that in dealing with the Bible, I had to do 
with God. Was it burdensome and hateful? Did we 
dread the morning worship? No” (12, 13). 

In early youth Dr. Clarke made a definite “experience 
of religion”. ‘‘When I was sixteen years old my personal 
religious life began. The blossoming of the long-prepared 
bud came suddenly, and I was full of fresh delight in the 
holy interests that were opened to me. Food for my soul 
I knew was to be found in the Bible, and I remember on 
the very first day asking my father what in the Bible 
I should read. I remember where I sat to read it, and 
what Bible I read it in. I remember the eager expectation 
with which I began. I remember, too, the effect. My 
soul was fed with heavenly food. There were solid and 
splendid expressions of truth there, so clear and glorious 
that I could not miss them, and so harmonious with my 
new life that they could not fail of entrance. Some of 
the divinest words in the world found me that day, and 
entered into the stock of my life. Nevertheless I rose 
from the reading with.a faint shadow of disappointment. 
Those magnificent lights of God seemed to shine out 
‘through clouds” (21, 22). 

Clarke went to college and seminary. He made much 
study of the Bible, so that, as he says, he was a “firm 
biblicist”. He puts his finger on the very first doubts 
which began to trouble him without at first being willing 
to recognize them. But these doubts persisted; they were 
reinforced by other doubts; he began to be susceptible ; 
he began to give way; at first hesitantly, slowly on more 
boldly. It all ends in that he becomes an out-spoken 
Higher Critic, an Evolutionist, a Modernist; and he 

93 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


makes no apology for it. As a teacher of theological 
students he is at pains to say how he labored to drive out 
of their minds the old-fashioned pre-conceptions which 
they brought along from their homes. How it grieved 
listo read) >tudents terse are very slow to accept any 
considerable alteration of their general acceptance of the 
Bible. Many of them come to us a generation or two 
behind the times in knowledge of what the Bible is..... 
Usually his opinions have been taught him and are held 
in deference to orthodox belief...... But it may be the 
duty of a theological seminary to shock him out of some 
of the ideas that he brought with him” (214, 215). 
Clarke thinks that in this way his students will really 
have gotten hold of the Bible in its true purpose. That 
the logic of the situation did not work out worse must 
be ascribed to the mercies of God, to the triumph of life 
over logic. 

What was the cause of this process of declension from 
the faithe Dr. Clarke himself states it in the beginning 
of his book: his theory of inspiration did not permit him 
to overcome the difficulties he felt. We too believe that 
he had a defective theological starting-point. And he 
himself confesses that he never obtained a theory of 
inspiration. He felt that all were defective, and the right 
one he did not possess. Hence, he had to get along with- 
out any; or, rather, unwittingly he made his way with 
a bad one whose terms he mentions clearly enough but 
which he did not definitely formulate: it would have 
frightened him. 

The experience and the book of’ Clarke is a close 
parallel with the experience of Cardinal Newman and 
his book, “Apologia pro Vita Sua’’. It is another very 
sad case of defection, and all because of the erroneous 
starting-point. Cardinal Newman, too, as he’ himself 

94 | 


THE CRITICISM OF THE SCRIPTURES 


circumstantially describes it, was brought up on strictly 
evangelical lines. He too in early youth had a definite 
experience of religion. It is curious that despite the 
events of later years he does not throw away the reality 
of this work of divine grace. In this case, too, life 
triumphed over logic. 

Cardinal Newman’s premises, however, differed from 
Clarke’s in this, that the former rested not so much on 
the Bible as on the Church with its historic traditions 
and authority. The relation of the Anglican Church to 
this brought him difficulty. For many years he sought 
hard and long to compose the difficulty by resorting to 
the so-called “via media’. But like Clarke, his strict 
honesty and his fearless meeting of the consequences, 
while he struggled hard against a stream which carried 
him where he did not at first want to go, bore him along 
from point to point till he found himself in the bosom 
of the Mother Church. How could that come to pass? 
Very naturally, once more, it was a case of proceeding 
from a wrong premise and with perfectly logical honesty 
accepting the conclusion. 

Both these striking instances may well impress us with 
the supreme importance of proceeding from correct 
principles. The examples given are illustrations of the 
principles of authority as were discussed in our third 
chapter. Clarke proceeded from the rationalist principle 
of authority and the good doctor and earnest believer 
landed in the camp of the Modernist. Newman proceed- 
ing from the principle of the authority of the Church, 
landed in its logical destination, Rome. It behooves us 
therefore to maintain very jealous guard over our 
principle, to make sure that we are perfectly true to it, 
and so enjoy its superlative benefits of grace and truth. 
“Principius obsta”’, said the ancients; ah, we must take 

95 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


heed that we do not mistake our way when we meet the 
forks in the road which may take us either in one wrong 
direction or in another. Consonant with our principle of 
authority it is also of very great importance that we have 
a theory of inspiration which will sufficiently meet the 
exigencies of our situation, of the difficulties which they 
offer. 

The important question will be asked, Has our principle 
of authority been maintained in its integrity and, Have 
we been in possession of a suitable doctrine of inspira- 
tion? Kuyper in his Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology 
in a few masterly strokes describes the situation pointing 
to a lack of complete correlation of all the elements in 
the complex problem: 

“In so far as the representation of the auctores secun- 
darii as amanuenses of the Holy Spirit........ tended 
exclusively to point out the oneness of conception [i.e. 
that the Bible is the Word of God in whatever manner 
the divine and the human elements may be concerned } 
we have no objection to raise. However, if one goes 
beyond this, and if, in order to maintain this oneness of 
conception one shut his eye to the manysidedness and 
pluriformity of Scripture and to the organic manner in 
which it eventually was brought about as the result of all 
sorts of factors, then one will have nothing left except a 
mechanical rigidity which murders the living, organic 
unity. Theologians of former times have of course not 
meant to do this. Indeed, they have even pointed out, 
oftentimes with considerable detail, the different origins 
of the books of the Bible, the difference in style and 
contents, differences in the characters and experiences 
of the authors, and also the different bearings of the 
parts of Scripture. But it cannot very well be denied that 
they shut themselves up rather too strictly to a close- 

96 


THE CRITICISM OF THE SCRIPTURES 


fitting theory of inspiration; too much so as to admit 
of the living organism of Scripture to come to its own” 
(II. 428). 

We call particular attention to this considerate state- 
ment as it comes from a strong advocate of orthodoxy 
in so much that he does not hesitate to call the Bible- 
writers “amanuenses of the Holy Spirit”. Now, while 
our orthodox theologians in America may be somewhat 
too much devoted to a strict doctrine of Verbal Inspiration 
and Inerrancy, on the other hand Modernists and the like 
must not imagine that they alone see the human elements 
of Scripture, nor, least of all, have first discovered them. 
In an important editorial Kuyper had this to say: “The 
opponents of the time-tried confession of the doctrine 
of Holy Scripture have already for fifty years [and this 
was written in 1882] taken the liberty to paint themselves 
in beautiful colors, and, we know no better word for it, 
to picture us as ugly. From the days of Herder onward 
it has become a confirmed habit amongst these folks to 
confide to the public that the old Confession had no eye 
for the human factor, and that neither person nor 
character, place nor time, neither choice of words nor 
style of language are to be considered in this monotonous: 
sameness of dictated texts. They lead the public to 
think: “What ignorant, densely ignorant, over-credulous 
people these old church theologians were that they allowed 
the wool thus to be pulled over their eyes!”* And then 
they exalt themselves to the skies as they point out how 
they have seen the wonderful diversity and varieties in 
Scripture. They have noticed the freshness and the ful- 
ness of life, they have discovered and tasted the living 


* In the racy original: “Wat domme, aartsdomme, over- 
onnoozele menschen waren die oude.kerktheologen toch dat ze 
zoo iets zich op den mouw lieten spelden!” 


97 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


waters which stream forth from the sacred page. Of 
course, the orthodox stand self-condemned before the 
public on such pretentious representations.’”’ And a little 
further we read: “To make an end to this “charge” 
| Kuyper uses the English word in his Dutch article] for 
we know no better word for it, and that said ‘charge’ 
rests upon pure imagination and ignorance of fact, I will 
choose my counter-proof not out of the period of the 
Reformation but out of the theological night of Egyptian 
darkness, of scholastic subtlety, which in so uncommon 
a degree is apt to excite the anger of our opponents. 
Well, then, in that seventeenth century in which, as they 
aver, the light of the Reformation had again come under 
the snuffer of scholasticism, after that Synod of Dordt 
which, as they claim, killed all spiritual life in our land, 
a handbook of theology was issued which spoke clearly 
on the question, namely, the well-known ‘Synopsis 
Purioris Theologiae”. There we read: ‘The manner of 
writing of Scripture was as follows: At one time the 
Lord God would dictate in such a manner that the writers 
would simply transcribe the words; as in Ex. 33:27, 28; 
Apoc. 1:8; etc. Then again the Lord did no more than 
to help them and to direct their minds so that they them- 
selves functioned as thinkers and composers; e.g., Luke 
1:1, 3. For they were by no means always passive, but 
also acted with their native energy, as men who cherished 
their own ideals, their minds worked after its own bent ; 
they deliberated, recollected and were idiomatic in their 
expressions; from this, differences in style resulted, but 
always in such a manner that the Holy Spirit led and 
directed them unaware (occulto instinctu) and they were 
thus preserved from error in their thinking, in their 
memory and composition’ ’”’. (De Heraut, No. 232). 
Now Kuyper does not want to convey the idea that 
08 


THE CRITICISM OF THE SCRIPTURES 


these men gave a full and perfect view of the matter; 
he only wanted to show that their eye for the main points 
at issue were to a surprisingly high degree correct, and 
that their views awaited only that comparatively minor 
development which further thought brings. These men 
stated matters, as viewed in the large, on correct lines; 
they moved in the right direction. But note well that 
what Modernism attempts to-day is not of this nature; 
theirs is the method of revolution and a harking back 
once more to heretical views which former times have 
also seen. 

Many of us believe that no one in the latter part of 
the 19th and first part of the 20th centuries is of so 
commanding importance for the development of Reform- 
ed theology as the late Dr. A. Kuyper of The Netherlands. 
He studied at Leyden under the famous liberals Kuenen, 
Scholten and others, and imbibed their teachings. But 
the practical experiences of life, the cry of the hungry 
soul which touched his heart, deep study of the principles 
of theology, contact with men and women who were 
strong in faith and who lived by the Word,—these and 
other factors wrought a complete change, and as a result 
his immense learning, his discriminating mind, his insight 
into the realities of life have combined to cause him to 
espouse the cause of religion as the Reformers have seen 
it, as it in their day shook the spiritual foundations of 
Europe with life from above. This Dr. Kuyper is not 
one of your narrow-minded moss-backs, whose sancti- 
moniousness would at once repel any red-blooded man, 
whose bigotry would blind to the respectful consideration 
of any contrary opinion. On the contrary, he hated cant, 
warned against a barren intellectualism, and urgently 
insisted on a healthy mysticism of true communion with 
God. He was one of the most genial of men, and bubbled 

990 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


over with humor. He was even a man of the world (in 
a good sense), for he was the accomplished leader of 
his political party and led it with such consummate ability 
that from almost nothing it eventually gained once and 
again a majority of the seats in the States General, and 
Kuyper himself was Prime Minister for four years. He 
also founded the Free University of Amsterdam designed 
to teach the full range of knowledge under the European 
system of faculties of Theology, Law, Medicine and 
Letters, all of them to be guided by Reformed principles: 
Even the theological faculty was not be bound in an 
absolute manner to the Church, but to be free within her 
own domain except that it is firmly committed to teach 
along Reformed principles. 

We mention these things to give weight to the opinions 
of a man of this comprehensive scholarship. He delved 
deep down into the meaning of all systems of knowledge, 
so that with the wealth of his knowledge of philosophy 
and science he set forth Reformed theology in such a 
manner as to have given it new life. His method is not 
repristination, a harking back to old things, but he 
reckons fully with TibNiowes later thought and new dis- 
covery have furnished the alert thinker. 

A circumstance, now, of peculiar significance, as 
proving that the scientific study of theology is ‘‘up-to- 
date’’ in The Netherlands, is the fact that the question of 
Higher Criticism is not feared, and has actually been 
recognized in a sense, and its findings made use of. On 
Oct. 20, 1881, Kuyper delivered a so-called Rectorial 
Oration on the subject of ‘““Modern Biblical Criticism”. 
Presently Dr. J. J. Van Oosterzee attacked him on the 
subject, arguing against the strict Reformed conception 
of Inspiration very much as our Modernists do to-day. 
In his reply Kuyper pointed out that the certainty of faith 


1Cco 


THE CRITICISM OF THE SCRIPTURES 


in Scripture does not depend upon proof through the 
reason, but that it rests like all our primordial notions 
on a ground of its own. He then says: “However, this 
does not compel us to dispense with the study of theology 
and to treat it in a scientific way. Indeed, on theological 
science rests the task of investigating this mighty wonder- 
work of Scripture. Never can I nor shall I join in with 
those who consider critical-historical investigation as 
superfluous, and who would simply ignore its questions. 
That 1s the hyper-spirituality of the lazy and a confession 
of weakness; this needs to be rebuked and discount- 
enanced. We do not believe, however, that every preacher 
should enter in upon those difficult questions. The sense- 
less method of teaching a minister of the Gospel almost 
nothing concerning the practical things of the ministry, 
and instead, pumping his head full of the E® and PJ and 
C and Dt. of the Pentateuch after the theory of Graf, 
Kayser, Wellhausen and Reuss condemns itself. But 
theology as such, in the circle of its specialists, may well 
feel ashamed of the fact that unbelievers have taken the 
lead in the investigation of this holy mystery, and that 
their exertion to break the Scriptures has proved to be 
a mightier incentive towards this branch of learning than 
our sacred interest in this precious work of God. In the 
controverted oration I took strong ground. I designed 
it to be a goad which would court resistance. But who- 
ever imagined that in it I brushed aside all historical- 
critical study of the Old and New Testaments, is greatly 
mistaken. On the contrary, if matters work out as I 
would like, then men of ability and good judgment will 
be graduated from our University who will make a deep 
study of these questions. 

“In the controverted oration four lines were run along 
which Reformed theology can eventually make its way: 

IOL 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


“1. The original writers of the Scriptures were in- 
struments of the Holy Spirit not in the sense as if only 
the ear and the fingers performed service, but they were 
instruments with their entire personality, including every- 
thing that belongs to their surroundings even unto 
archives. This signifies that their spiritual existence, 
their thinking, their memory, their conceptions of fact, 
their kind of composition and their style, their native 
cifts, their knowledge of things about them, the traditions 
which had come unto them, yea, even books and docu- 
ments, — all these belong to that full periphery of their 
person which, with their person as the instrument, was 
at the disposal of the Holy Spirit. This 1s no departure 
from Reformed theology. Our citation from the “Syn- 
opsis”’ proves the contrary. However, it gives to a current 
theological process an additional development and explains 
much that hitherto had remained obscure. 


“2. Do not confine the work of God the Holy Spirit 
to the original documentation of any writing, but also 
have an ear and an eye for the work of the Holy Spirit 
in the further recasting and elaboration which such a 
writing underwent before it definitely entered the Canon. 
Even as God is the creator of the original earth, but also 
the fashioning of the later redactions, so to speak, of 
our tellurian affairs, even thus a difference must be made 
in regard to the original documentation and the later 
shaping thereof by redactors. This too is no departure 
from old Reformed theology as you will find e.g. in 
Revetus. But it is a further and new development which 
promises more certainty and more freedom; and it 
prepares us to receive much more that has been discovered 
in the last fifty years in regard to the Scriptures. 


“3. Thirdly, we referred to the development of 
102 


THE CRITICISM OF THE SCRIPTURES 


psychology, and we noted in what manner a correct 
knowledge of the psychological interaction of the one 
upon the other as occurs in speaking may shed new light 
upon God’s speaking to His prophets. 


“4. And in the fourth place we ventured to make an 
attempt how to differentiate between the healthy and the 
unhealthy motives in the historico-critical treatment of 
the Scriptures so that the line of demarcation between 
them may be properly respected. Two kinds of sin obtain 
in the hearts of the learned as well as in others, sin in 
an ethical and sin in an intellectual sense: both have their 
root in unbelief. In the ethical sense the man of learning 
sins who comes short in the delicate ethical feeling of 
keeping far away from God’s Holy Scripture all appear- 
ance even of falsehood and pious fraud. Whoever, for 
instance, comes to confide to us that Daniel indeed 
belongs to the Bible, but that it is a false book written 
at a later date, that is, after the events had transpired, 
and then given under the form of a prophecy, therewith — 
comes to stand outside of that which is holy. Likewise, 
whoever is influenced by pantheistic theories of thought 
and would figure away the facts which in Scripture are 
stated as the great facts which dominate the lives of men, 
he too falls outside the sphere of Christian theology. A 
representation as if Gen. 1:1-3 were a myth is con- 
sequently condemned as contrary to that which is holy” 
(De Heraut, No. 234). 


As giving his fully matured judgment, Kuyper in his 
Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology declares that “both 
Church and individual believer may regard as a failure 
any canonical inquiry which introduces a pious fraud or 
a falsehood into it”; but he also declares that it is “just 
as impermissible to deny the right of a historico-critical 

103 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


investigation after the origin, the composition and later 
redactions of the writings of the Bible, just because the 
results of such investigation may not accord with certain 
traditional beliefs.’’ He goes on: 

“Armed with their distinction between the auctor 
primarius and secundarius, particularly the Reformed 
theologians have always conceded the possibility of the 
composition of the Bible-books by parts and their revision 
through another editor; and, provided all the labor 
bestowed upon the composition of such a writing, includ- 
ing the later redactions, were but placed under the 
operation of the inspiratio scripturaria, such a represen- 
tation can never come in conflict with the testimony of 
the Holy Spirit. In the theory that the Pentateuch con- 
sists of different parts, which again in part rest upon 
other documents, older, and which are lost; that this. 
collection was completed in course of time; and that the 
final redaction through which the whole was cast into 
its present form, and that this occurred in later time, in 
this there lies nothing which need offend us, provided 
the reality of what is thus communicated to us remain 
guaranteed through the imspiratio scripturaria. ‘That 
Moses himself with his own hand wrote the entire 
Pentateuch as we now have it, is nowhere taught us in 
Scripture, and is least of all to be assumed from the title 
“Moses and the Prophets” (Luke 16:31). With this 
title and with such expressions as in John 1:46 we come 
into conflict if it be disputed that the material for the 
Pentateuch should not be derived from Moses, and that 
not Moses also himself left behind a most important 
literary legacy, but this conflict does not obtain if you 
come to the conclusion that the material thus furnished 
and the documents from the hand of Moses were in later 
times put together and that this whole underwent still 

104 


THE CRITICISM OF THE SCRIPTURES 


further revision under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as 
well as the other. Even the hypothesis that Deuteronomy 
was written in its present form in later times does not 
collide with the ‘Testimonium Spiritus Sancti’ if only 
this remain established that the sources after which it is 
edited were reliable and that the editing itself proceeded 
under the “leading into all truth”. The Church of Christ 
is concerned with the final result, not with any method 
of elaboration of these writings. The less mechanically 
and the more naturally this moulding took place, the 
better. From the nature of the case the ‘Testimonium 
Spiritus Sancti’ cannot postulate any detailed require- 
ment, it can never validate any other than a spiritual 
requirement, and this requirement is positive in character, 
in that it speaks to us with Divine authority in that which 
Scripture as a whole presents to us, and it is negative 
in character in that we are not belied by the Holy Spirit. 

“And indeed it is just the latter situation which at 
present under various palliative forms is being received 
in growing measure as the result of historico-critical 
studies. God has not truly spoken to Moses as is claimed ; 
Moses has not given this revelation to Israel in the 
current form; in what is told us there may lie concealed 
a germ of historical truth, but as we have the account 
before us, it must be the drapery of some reality...... 
To conclude, hardly one fact remains standing on a firm 
basis, and not one truth which, apart from our approval, 
will be honored by us as authentic. Of the facts, then, 
nothing may remain but those which can be explained 
in a natural way, and is devoid of interest because of its 
commonness, while, on the other hand, only that is 
admitted which enters our own range of thought, not 
because its Divine authority impresses us, but because 
we regard it as being in agreement with what would 

105 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


appear true to us even without Scripture. In this way 
all Divine authority is gone: on not a single point can 
mention of certainty be made” (Encyc. III. 51-54). 

This again points in the same direction that in dealing 
with Divine things we may not apply human measure- 
ments. From the nature of.the case everything human 
must be absolutely subordinate and dependent. This ts 
a necessary corollary of the Reformed principle of 
authority. 

And hence Scripture may not be placed on one line 
with any other literature. Sacred literature is absolutely 
unique in its kind. On this point again we are happy to 
quote from Kuyper’s Encyclopedia : 

“The predicate Holy before Scripture becomes in its 
application to the individual books the predicate of 
Canonical. As Scripture lies before you and as it 
is subjectively accepted by theologians, it makes itself 
an exception; it affirms to be what no other book 
or collection of writings is; and it lays claim to the — 
exercise of a certain authority. If now science proceeds 
to examine this Biblia, it is this exceptional, this charac- 
teristic attribute, this high pretension which is the chief 
thing to which this investigation is to devote itself and 
all other investigations have to adjust themselves around 
this one chief point.....-: The study of theology has a 
starting-point of its own. It lies in the fact that both by 
means of the history of the Church and through the 
‘Testimonium Spiritus Sancti’ in an individual sense a 
certain bond has come about between Scripture and the 
investigator, a bond which in Scripture itself 1s 
characterized as a “trembling at the Word of God.” 
This mystical fact may not for a moment be left out 
of account. Whoever disregards it tears Scripture out 
of its living connection, and retains but an abstraction. 

106 


THE CRITICISM OF THE SCRIPTURES 


It is precisely this mystical element on which these studies 
must shed their light, and which they may not ignore 
nor remove, but which they must explain...... The 
object of these studies can never be to determine for you 
or for the Church what Scripture shall be. For every 
heart and for the Church Scripture is what she is not 
as a result of study but as the result of historical and 
spiritual-mystical factors...... The Christian lives by 
the Scriptures and continues to do this undisturbed; and 
alongside of this those studies which investigate this 
“living by Scripture” pursue their course, not in order 
that the Christian may from time to time change his 
spiritual living according to the changing results of these 
studies of Scripture, but in order that these studies shall 
not rest till they have succeded to sufficiently explain 
tranquil, unaltered life. We quietly breathe on, alto- 
gether without regard to the studies which the physi- 
ologist is instituting concerning respiration; and life 
remains intact hardly concerned as to what the man of 
science may bring to light on the nature of life. How- 
ever, no one will gainsay that physiological and biological 
studies are valuable for hygiene, but these studies do not 
originate and justify respiration and life as such. In the 
same way canonical studies undoubtedly can give a purer 
direction to our “living by the Scriptures”, if only this 
“living by the Scriptures’’, in its historico-mystical sense, 
retain its fundamental significance” (III. 25, 26). 


107 


| CHAPTER VII 
THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION 


It must have become evident that a correct doctrine. 
of inspiration is of great importance. The doctrine must 
be of such a nature as to reckon with all the facts 
involved. Particularly, it must face the vexed question 
of Errancy or Inerrancy. Furthermore, various theories 
of inspiration have been offered: these need to be care- 
fully examined. Some of these may sound very accept- 
able, but may be deceptive in their value: sometimes a 
plausible name may be deftly shuffled off for what is 
really another matter. 

We cannot of course enter into everything, and must 
confine ourselves to our main purpose, and examine all 
that has bearing in this connection upon the principal 
matter in hand. 

In our day the storm-center seems to be largely the 
question as to whether inspiration is of a so-called 
“static” or “dynamic” kind. Liberals affix the former 
_ designation to the theory of the orthodox, and they 
themselves glory in the latter name. They just love to 
use that word “static’’ as if its mere application will at 
once and infallibly act as a withering blight on all 
orthodox pretension. They are very welcome to the use 
of the word dynamic” for themselves, but we indignant- 
ly disown their characterization of our position. 

“Static” is a word which applies to something mechan- 
ical, unchangeable. Besides, there is an equivocal element 
in the designation. Conceivably you may call the Divine 

108 


THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION 


Being “static” if you think of Him as unchangeable and 
as that one “‘with whom can be no variation, neither 
shadow that is cast by turning’ (James 1:17). However, 
from another point of view, we must consider Him in 
the light of Jesus’ saying: “My Father worketh even 
until now, and I work” (John 6:17). The older theolo- 
gians very correctly and beautifully spoke of God as 
“actus purissimus”’. In like manner we Reformed do not 
acknowledge the correctness of the designation “static” 
as applicable to our view of Inspiration, for is not the 
“word of God living, and active’? (Heb. 4:12). Besides, 
the composition of the Bible, as our quotations above 
show, was not mechanical but allowed of all manner of 
diversity of style and recognized human initiative. 
Neither do we acknowledge the contents of our theology 
as being “static”. For while great principles have been 
found which steadily refuse to capitulate to others; 
and while the great dogmas have gained a pretty well 
settled form, nevertheless there will always remain room 
for further detail, for a more extensive tracing of their 
correlations amongst themselves and their relations to 
the endlessly diversified realities of life: this is not 
“static’. The truth as it exists in the Divine mind is 
the most absolutely static of all, whilst at the same time 
it makes Him most Self-sufficient rejoicing in Himself 
and in all His works. 

But is the Liberal as well off as he thinks when he 
stands by the characterization of his view of Inspiration 
as being “dynamic’’? It sounds well. It looks as if it 
fits the word of Scripture: “moved by the Holy Spirit”. 
But what does he make of this text? Not what we do. 

The same question came to the fore in the controversy 
in which Dr. J. J. Van Oosterzee, of the theological 
faculty of the University of Utrecht, attacked Dr. A. 

109 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


Kuyper on account of his Rectorial Oration on “Higher 
Criticism’, to which we have already adverted above. 
This was in 1882. And Dr. Kuyper replied in part as 
follows: 

“Dr. Van Oosterzee makes it appear as if on our part 
a certain mechanical theory of Inspiration were defended, 
over against which he then places his own as the dynamic 
theory. We protest as well against the distinctions be- 
tween the two as against the qualification. Every 
mechanical idea of inspiration we reject, detest and 
abhor. ‘‘Mechanical” is the word which serves to indicate 
that which is low, ignoble. To apply this to the work 
of the Lord God would be degradation to the most 
glorious working of the power of God, ascribing unto 
Him what is unworthy even with man, and thus to make 
of the deep mystery of Scripture a representation as if 
it had come about through magic or mechanics, 

‘Never did even our fathers adhere to such a view; 
and we protest all the stronger because this is one of 
those ugly terms with which our opponents dub us. That 
word “mechanical” is a term of reproach with which 
highly pretentious circles in Germany sought to under- 
mine the authority of the Scriptures. 

“Over against the machine whose parts man puts to- 
gether, stands the organism which is God’s creation. 
Therefore we may never think of Scripture other than 
as an organism. And since the Lord God is not a man 
who stands antithetically over against the instrument of 
His revelation, but is an omnipresent, immanent God 
who upholds His creature, and in whom he lives and 
moves and has his being, therefore the operation of God 
in and upon the instrument of His revelation may never 
be thought of other than as organic. 

“The antithesis made by Dr. Van Oosterzee does not 

Ilo 


THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION 


apply. Any one can see that over against a machine does 
not stand power, but over against that which has been 
put together and manufactured stands that which is 
constituted by natural process, created from a germ. 
Over against the mechanical therefore stands only the 
organic. 

“The word “dynamic” has come from an entirely 
different quarter: it is of pantheistic origin. It owes its 
origin to quite a different antinomy than the mechanical 
as over against the organic. 

‘From of old it was held on Scriptural grounds that 
in God’s works the word was first, and afterwards and 
out of the word was life. But the Ethical School inverts 
this; not only that in theology does this, but also that 
widely extended ethical tendency which as a philosophical 
school and as a philosophical power has permeated all 
lands and every domain of thought, and of which the 
Ethical School in theology is only one of its tempered 
expressions. This School then declares that instead of 
the word being first it shall henceforth be life first and 
out of that the word. This accounts for the fact that you 
find among these people such aversion to exactitude of 
definition, accuracy of ideas, firmness of principle; and 
alongside of this you will always find a retreating to the 
faith of the heart, to the mysticism of the soul, to the 
hidden life, to the influence of personality, to the atmos- 
phere which surrounds one, and finally even to the un- 
conscious. All the struggle against the Confessions, 
against dogmatics, against a definite church polity pro- 
ceeds from that same source, out of that fatal fountain 
of pantheism which accepting a process in God and so 
doing away with the living, personal God, allows the 
deepest, richest revelations of life to come forth from the 
soul of man, slowly on of course, and tends to expression. 

IItf 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


Among these people the term “dynamic’’ is at home. 
They mean by it that from God influences only proceed, 
indefinite, unconscious. 

“When this view is held among Christians they repre- 
sent things on this fashion: God causes influences and 
powers to flow into the one and not into the other; these 
may be increased; these may be set in motion. But that 
is all that God does. Thoughts, expectations, impulses, 
etc. proceed spontaneously: all is a process in man which 
goes on as naturally as the rising of vapor from a steam 
boiler, etc. 

“It is natural therefore that theologians in Germany, 
who hold this view, correctly located Verbal or conscious 
Inspiration over against the Dynamic or unconscious. 
This indicates with incontrovertible accuracy all the 
breadth of the chasm which yawns between the Word of 
Scripture and this philosophical school. 

“Gods revelation never was made mechanically, but 
always organically. Even in His giving of the Law 
written with His own finger on tables of stone we really 
have to do with the creative work of God’s omnipresent 
power” (De Heraut, No. 230). 

Having treated the term “dynamic” as applied to 
Inspiration, we shall now treat of two other terms both 
of which belong to the orthodox camp, viz., Plenary and 
Verbal Inspiration. The former term applies to the com- 
pleteness of extent, and the latter to the particularity of 
intent. Against the former perhaps little objection has 
been raised on general lines; but the latter term has met 
with strong opposition. Briggs in his “The Bible, the 
Church, and the Reason” directs the strongest kind of 
artillery-fire against this view; he points out numerous 
cases of error in the Scripture; he cites even Calvin and 
other orthodox writers as admitting such errors. Like- 

TI2 


THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION 


wise Dr. John DeWitt in his “What is Inspiration?” did 
the very same thing, arguing in favor of Errancy and 
against what is called Verbal Inspiration. And _ the 
orthodox in America have labored hard to defend Verbal 
Inspiration and Inerrancy; and without being able to 
make headway against the opposition. 

In view of the fact that such theologians as Kuyper 
and Bavinck of The Netherlands, have cccupied the 
strongest kind of ground on the absolute authority of 
Scripture, accepting the Scripture in its entirety as the 
Word of God, holding that it not merely contains the 
Word of God but that it in its entirety is the Word of 
God, nevertheless it will almost shock many to hear that 
they do not precisely stand for so-called Verbal Inspira- 
tion, but they designate their theory as Organic 
Inspiration, a form in which they trouble themselves 
little with the ideas of Errancy or Inerrancy. 

We can best give an account of the matter by quoting 
from the Dogmatic Theology of Prof. Dr. Herman 
Bavinck, late of the Free University of Amsterdam, a 
man of wide learning, and great ability, and among the 
Reformed circles in The Netherlands a theologian of the 
highest authority, and advocating in the matter of 
Inspiration the same view as Dr. Kuyper: 

“Holy Scripture nowhere furnishes a clearly formulat- 
ed dogma of inspiration, but it gives the material in all 
its elements which are necessary for the construction of 
the doctrine. It teaches the inspiration of Scripture in 
the same sense and in the same manner as clearly and 
plain, but also formulated it in abstract generalizations 
just as little as the dogma of the Trinity, of the Incarna- 
tion, of the Atonement, etc. Inspiration is a fact taught 
by Scripture itself. Jesus and the Apostles gave witness 
to it. It speaks of itself as such. Does this deserve to be 


JGR: 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


respected? Whoever makes his doctrine of the Scripture 
dependent upon historical investigation after its origin 
and structure, begins already to reject the witness of 
Scripture itself, and hence does not stand in the faith. 
The facts and phenomena of Scripture, the results of 
scientific investigation, may serve to throw some light 
upon the doctrine of the Scripture concerning herself, 
but they can never nullify the facts as such. While then 
one party affirms that only such an inspiration is accept- 
able as agrees with the phenomena of Scripture, the other 
party proceeds from the principle that the phenomena of 
Scripture are consistent with the self-witness of Scripture, 
not as Criticism views them, but as they are as a matter 
of fact. (I. 339-342). 

“Scripture sets the pace in regarding the speaking of 
God through the prophets as organically as possible. 
There is a difference between the prophets and the 
apostles, and again between these amongst themselves. 
Moses stands at the head of the prophets : God spake with 
him as a friend with a friend. In the case of Isaiah the 
impulse of the Spirit exhibits a different character than 
in the case of Ezechiel; Jeremiah’s prophecies are 
distinguished from those of Zachariah and Daniel for 
their simplicity and naturalness. In all the prophets of 
the Old Testament the impulse of the Spirit is more or 
less transcendent: it comes from above and falls upon 
them. In the case of the apostles the Holy Spirit dwells 
immanent in their hearts, leads, enlightens and teaches 
them. There obtains therefore a great difference also 
in this organic character of Inspiration. All Scripture 
obliges us not to think of its inspiration as being mechan- 
icabybut Organic. 4... In His revelation and inspiration 
the Spirit shows condescension, and He has adjusted 
Flimself to the peculiarities, even to the weaknesses of 

114 


THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION 


human nature. Even as the Logos did not fall upon man 
but entered into human nature and formed it through 
the Spirit from whom it was received, so the Spirit of 
the Lord has also acted in Inspiration. He entered into 
the prophets themselves and has so taken them into His 
service and moulded them that they themselves invest- 
igated, thought, spoke and wrote. It is He that speaks 
through them, but at the same time they themselves speak 
“Vth ahity i eearariae The Holy Spirit did not arbitrarily 
decide to write at one time thus, and at another time, so; 
but entering the writers he also entered into their style 
and language — into their characters and peculiarities 
which He had Himself prepared and formed. Their 
personal experiences were thus used for the benefit of 
the church of God (345-349). 

“It does not follow that everything is full of divine 
wisdom, that every jot and tittle has an infinite content. 
Everything has its meaning, to be sure, but it is in that 
place and in that connection wherein it occurs. Scripture 
may not be regarded atomistically as if every word and 
letter, standing loose by itself and isolated, should as such 
have been inspired with a meaning of its own, and there- 
fore with divine, infinite content. But Scripture must be 
taken organically so that that which is least has its place 
and meaning and still lies much farther from the center 
than other parts. In the human organism nothing 1s 
accidental, neither length of person, color or tint; all 
stand related to the life-center. Head and heart occupy 
a much more important place than hand and foot, than 
nails-and hair (352,353). 

“Furthermore this organic view of Inspiration furnish- 
es us the means of meeting many objections which are 
brought in against the inspiration of Scripture. It is of 
great significance that the Holy Spirit did not disdain 

115 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


anything human to be the vehicle of the divine. The 
revelation of God is not abstractly supernatural, but has 
made use of the human, of persons and circumstances, 
of forms and usages, of history and customs. The per- 
sonality of the writers has not been superseded, but has 
been maintained and sanctified. Inspiration therefore in 
no wise requires that we place the literary style and the 
esthetic taste of an Amos on an equal footing with Isaiah. 
Secondly, the organic view of revelation and inspiration 
implies that common and natural life has not been ex- 
cluded, but has been made subservient to the thought of 
God. Sin in the best of its saints is mentioned, and error 
is never condoned. And while the revelation of God in 
Christ thus taken up in itself unrighteousness as an 
anthithesis, it does not despise the human and weak. 
That which is Christian does not stand antithetically over - 
against the human: it is the restoration and renewal 
thereof. 

“Thirdly, the object and end of Scripture are closely 
connected with its contents...... It serves to make us 
wise unto salvation. Holy Scripture has an exclusively 
religious-ethical end in view. It is not a book of science. 
It has the specific characteristic of being the principium 
of theology, whence we must read and investigate its 
contents theologically. In all the branches of study which 
are grouped about Scripture, the saving knowledge of 
God must determine these studies. For that purpose 
Scripture furnishes the full data. In that sense it is 
perfect and complete. Whoever would construct from 
Scripture a history of Israel, a biography of Jesus, a 
history of Israelitish or Old-Christian literature will find 
himself disappointed. Historical Criticism has forgotten 
this. Therefore it runs up against contradictions which 
cannot be solved; it assorts sources and documents with-_ 

116 


THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION 


out end, etc., with the result of accentuating the con- 
fusion. Out of the four Gospels no Life of Jesus can be 
constructed; out of the Old Testament, no history of 
Israel. This was not the object of Holy Scripture. 
Inspiration does not exhibit the precise recording of the 
notary public. The harmonizing of the Gospels has been 
a failure” (358-360). 

“This determines the relation between Scripture and 
Science. As the book of the knowledge of God Scripture 
has indeed much to say also to the other sciences...... 
Much of what is mentioned in Scripture is of fundamen- 
tal signification for various sciences as well. Creation 
and the fall of man, the unity of the human race, the 
deluge, the origin of the nations, and languages, etc., are 
all tacts of great importance for scientific research. 
Science and art constantly come in contact with Scripture 
since the principia for all life are given in Scripture. But 
all these facts are not given in Scripture on their own 
account but for a theological purpose... .. And further- 
more, Scripture describes scientific matters not in the 
exact language of the schools but after the first im- 
pressions which phenomena make upon man. Hence it 
speaks of the earth as the center of the universe, and it 
uses the language of daily experience. Had it used the 
language of the learned and spoken scientifically exact, 
it would have stood in the way of its own authority” 
(360-363 ). 

To resume. The doctrine of inspiration amounts to 
very little on the Liberal interpretation, which appears 
more or less correct for all forms, we presume, in the 
following definition of Charles W. Gilkey: “What then 
is inspiration? The power of all great utterance of 
spiritual experience to move upon and call forth kindred 
response in the souls of men.” We ask, Whence this 


117 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


spiritual experience? Its origin is not stated, but all their 
literature gives the impression that it is really of human 
origin as it is the “best that is in man.” 

The orthodox believe in the Divine Being as a Living 
personality who regards His creatures and is able to 
communicate with them. As to His method no one can 
help but feel that deep mystery resides in the manner 
thereof. But such mystery applies to so many other 
doctrines of Scripture. The separate elements which 
enter into them may to a very high degree admit of 


construction and comprehension, but we get into profound 


difficulty when the interrelations are to be pointed out. 
Our definitions may proceed in the right direction, but 
cannot be completed. This will appear on considering 
such doctrines as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atone- 
ment; it troubles us in harmonizing free-will and human 
responsibility and we find it in seeking to harmonize the 
divine and the human factor in the doctrine of Inspira- 
tion. The Modernist with his naturalistic basis may solve 
all problems easily and crow over it, not being aware how 
superficial he is, but he simply ignores the Divine. The 
Reformed have truly grappled with the problems; they 
have recognized both elements to the full extent and have 
heroically proceeded to bring about a measurable solution 
withal confessing that depths beyond have halted their 
power of comprehension. 

“The trouble with us is that we endeavor to explain 
what ought to be adored as a mystery. You ridicule the 
mechanical theory of inspiration, but what do you say 
about the others, which are advanced and defended from 
time to time? Do they explain the unsearchable agency 
of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration of the Scripture? 
I must honestly say that there is no theory which satisfies 
me. But have I now to give up the fact of inspiration 

1i8 


THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION 


because all the theories fail to explain it? Who desires 
to sit in darkness because he is unable to explain the 
nature and origin of the light? Instead of throwing 
away our treasure and the assurance of its reality, on 
account of the mystery connected with it, let us try to 
become more and more acquainted with its rich contents 
Susie Do we indulge in Bibliolatry? By no means. We 
worship our Father in Heaven in Jesus Christ His Son; 
but it is the Holy Spirit who directs our eyes to the 
wonderful picture of God in Christ we find in the 
Bib ipee see The Holy Scriptures are entirely human and 
at the same time entirely Divine: Do you comprehend 
this I do not, but I believe in the mystery of Inspira- 
tion” (Prof. N. M. Steffens, D.D.). 

In his “Dictaten Dogmatiek”’ Dr. Kuyper brings this 
out in a striking fashion: “Scripture contains a divine 
and a human factor. This too was the case in the Son 
of God. Try it out and say: Christ was God in the flesh, 
but that flesh did not properly belong to the Mediator ; 
separate the two, then you will have to do either of two: 
to follow the method of Docetism and declare the external 
form of Jesus negligible; or you must say the Divine was 
nothing except a human life endowed with high poten- 
cies. Suppose that a physician had gone to the Savior 
and had asked for permission to examine his flesh and 
blood in order to discover the divine in him. Everybody 
would have called this absurd. But it is just as absurd 
for the critic to dissect Scripture, human as its form 
appears to us, to lay bare the divine. As in an organism, 
the scaipel of the anatomist cannot indicate the beginning 
or the location of life.” 

In that wonderful and beautiful Section 46 of his 
Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology Dr. Kuyper thus puts 
the same matter: ‘Even as in the Mediator the Divine 

119 


, THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


nature was wedded to the human and comes before us ‘in 
the form and fashion of the latter, thus also the Divine 
factor in Scripture clothes itself in the garment of our 
human forms of thought...... As a literary product 
Holy Scripture takes the form of a servant. This con- 
fuses the vision. As many a painting of the French 
School at first shows only-daubs and blotches, you must 
take time to find the right position for beholding its 
beauties. Even so with the Savior. How many have not 
been able to see Him! Only then when one stands in the 
right position, and himself received the light in his 
spiritual eye, can he see the Divine nature shine forth 
from the Rabbi of Nazareth. Do not promise yourself 
the coming of faith from an examination of the external 
beauties of Scripture. This will rather be a hindrance to 
faith. Whatever else you may see, you will have to see 
the unity of conception in order to make Holy Scripture 
to you a Divine reality.” 

Since the Liberal places his main reliance for a lax 
view of Inspiration upon the Errancy of Scripture it 
becomes very important resolutely to face the matter and 
to examine in how far he may be right; and if so, in 
a small degree, how he is to be met and still keep the 
Reformed principle of authority inviolate. Again we 
cannot do better than to listen to the voice of one whose 
sound and sane judgment must readily commend itself: 

“The Church has never meant to raise to the dignity 
of a dogma the manner of the origination of the 
Scriptures. The Church confesses; and her confession 
can therefore extend no further than to the character of 
inspiration in connection with its result. How Scripture 
came into being, and how its different layers were formed, 
does not concern the believer as such, and is to a large 
extent a matter of indifference to the Church. The only 

. 120 


EPR 
; 


THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION 


matter upon which she insists and for which she contends 
is that the divine authority, the infallibility, the absolute 
guarantee, the certainty stand unshaken. The Church 
confesses; that is, she declares that she possesses, that she 
knows, that she must witness. Her first need therefore 
is rocklike, immovable certainty. A certainty for which 
her martyrs are willing to die. And that certainty can 
therefore be none other than such as carries an immediate. 
Divine guarantee. oe 
“Hence, as a believer one cannot with full confidence 
go along with such as to-day cry out from every direction: 
“If only I possess Christ, I have the fulfilment of all my 
needs!" For, however much of truth there may be in this 
matter as such, it is, as a ground of certainty, like a cork 
floating upon the water. For where do you find your 
Christ? How do you know about him? How will you 
distinguish between a true and a false conception of your 
Savior? Is it not true that this can be done through the 
Scriptures, and through them alone? 7) 
“T cannot obtain divine certainty than by means of a/ 
two-fold work of God the Holy Spirit: 1. that God the 
Holy Spirit absolutely guarantee the truth of the contents 
of Scripture; 2. that God the Holy Spirit, aside from 
all criticism and literary investigation, in an immediate 
manner work in my heart that assurance that Scripture 
possesses this divine authority. My own certainty, as a 
man of learning, must be no better nor other than that 
of the plainest rustic. Otherwise it would not be religious 
in its nature. And since a plain child of God knows 
nothing about Manuscripts, or variants, or interpolations, 
therefore the certainty which everybody needs to be 
_assured of as before God for his eternal welfare, must 
rest upon an authority which has nothing to do with all 
this erudition; and as it obtains altogether outside of the 
121 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


universities it must be instilled in my consciousness by 
an immediate work of God the Holy Spirit. This is the 
Testimonium Spiritus Sancti of the Reformation. It is 
the only certainty which I declare I know. And all 
ministers who attempt to do something else in order to 
awaken this testimony of the Holy Spirit, may be smart 
Christian rabbis, but they are not glad witnesses for a 
divine assurance with which the Merciful One comforts 
our souls” (Kuyper, De Heraut). 

But how shall discrepancies be met to justify such 
confidence? Dr. Kuyper thus answers a correspondent : 

“Having been asked how we explain the troublesome 
fact that the Law of the Ten Commandments which in 
Ex. XX is recorded as having been directly given from 
God Himself, can appear once more in Deut. V with 
considerable variation of wording. 

“We shall show that only on our standpoint and with 
the acceptance of an absolute inspiration this objection 
loses its pertinence. The objection would have weight 
if you proceed froma narrow, slavishly literal construc- 
tion of things which has nothing in common with the 
free and glorious ways of God in his work of inspiration. 
Of course if you think of the Holy Spirit as a rabbinical 
precisionist, who produces document after document out 
of his case of rolls, and then copies with anxious accuracy, 
you will fare badly with your Scripture. But such a 
position we reject most emphatically. In the Scriptures 
you do not hear a rabbinist speaking, who counts every 
tittle and scrutinizes every jot; and you are also in error 
if you think you will find some candidates for the notary- 
ship busy at work correcting mistakes in the minutes. 
Every such conception is without sense and ignores the 
mighty, personal, dominating work of the Holy Spirit, 
and it comes into its own when you take careful note 


A ee 


THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION 


of the fact that the same Divine consciousness out of 
which the Ten Commandments proceeded at Horeb is 
also the Divine consciousness through which Moses spake 
at Nebo; and furthermore, it is the same Divine con- 
sciousness through whose direction the documentation 
was controlled of what we read in Ex. XX and Deut. V. 
Now I ask you whether the author of a document is not 
perfectly in his right to repeat his own thoughts in 
another form? Since human language is too imperfect 
to reflect the fulness of the Divine mind, would you bind 
the Lord God to a form which would limit His sovereign- 
ty? And if this variation in form of expression had 
had no other object than to prevent deification of the 
letter, would not that have been a sufficient reason for 
God’s high purpose? 

“These two redactions of the Law afford us no trouble, 
but it must rather disconcert our opponents. Judged 
by their view these variations must stand to the account 
of fallible human beings, and therefore you can never 
tell what Gods commandments really are. These fallible 
redactors can have been mistaken in anything, and with 
this all religious certainty is at an end. On the other 
hand, we on our premises and by reason of our glorious 
and blessed confession of an absolute inspiration, we 
have no difficulty, and we discover that through these 
differences of reading our treasure has even been en- 
riched. For to us it is God the Holy Spirit who guaran- 
tees us with absolute certainty that we, reading in 
Ex. XX, have, I do not say a diplomatically exact copy, 
but a guaranteed reproduction of what in actutl fact and 
to all intents and purposes had been heard on Mt. Sinai. 
And then, on coming to Deut. V, we once more find the 
same God, the Holy Spirit who with the same absolute 
certainty guarantees us that the reproduction of the Law 

123 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


recorded there holds good and furnishes us the Law 
of God without need of our being disconcerted about 
the form. 

“The same applies to citations from the Old Testament 
which the Divine Author may vary as He pleases, they 
being His own; this also applies to differences between 
the Synoptic Gospels; etc. 

“Attempt the solution of Gen. 11:26, 32; 12:4 with 
Acts 7:4. If you do not succeed, do not become dis- 
couraged. Inspiration does not require that Stephen 
narrated everything in accordance with the exact facts 
of history, but only that the discourse of Stephen has 
been truly recorded”’ (Dict. Dogm. S. S. II. 216). 

“If you dispense with the absolute inspiration of God 
the Holy Spirit, all these discrepancies which may be 
harmonistically pottered away, will rise up before you 
mountain high as stumbling-blocks, as rocks upon which 
your faith in the Scriptures is in danger of shipwreck. 

“On the other hand, if you accept this absolute in- 
spiration with holy ecstasy, you will be, thank God, done 
with all these makeshift activities; you will be as free 
as a fish in the water, and without needing to cover or 
disguise anything, you will rest in the absolute guarantee 
vouchsafed by the Holy Spirit that every deviation leaves 
the matter inviolate and with Divine assurance brings 
it to your soul with added clearness” (De Heraut, 
No..229). 

While, then, the presence of anything in Scripture is 
under direct knowledge and supervision of the Holy 
Spirit who is the Architect of the whole, there are degrees 
of intensity of application of this superintendence, as 
there are such degrees of vigilance in an architect in- 
the building for which he is responsible. In “moving the 
holy men of old” the Holy Spirit must necessarily have 

124 


THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION 


done this in an absolute manner (though in a way 
inscrutable to. us) in such cases as in Gen. I and in the 
prophecies. In narrating simple historical fact, and in 
copying lists of names from documents at hand, this 
superintendence was at a minimum. As to matters of 
indifferent consequence this was left to the natural im- 
pression of the writer about which the Holy Spirit did 
not trouble Himself. A case in point is, as to whether 
one or two blind men cried out to our Lord near Jericho: 
“Thou son of David, have mercy on us!” The accounts 
give several variations; but Organic Inspiration does not 
require notarial exactness of all the details, but the truth 
of life, and it guarantees the account. We may therefore 
be certain that wherever much depends on the language, 
there the guarantee reaches to every required detail. 

As we have already intimated, our orthodox Pres- 
byterian brethren have strongly insisted upon the 
Inerrancy of Scripture, but probably they also, when 
certain difficulties are brought to their attention, will 
acknowledge something of what the Liberal chooses to 
call Errancy, and to really explain the difficulty the 
Organic theory of Inspiration will offer the best solution. 
A case in point is the remark of Dr. C. E. Macartney: 
“By the inerrancy of the Scriptures is not meant that 
there can be no discrepancy between the numerals in 
Kings and Chronicles, of that (although the subject is 
still discussed by scholars) in the passage where referencé 
is made in Matthew’s gospel to what was done with the 
thirty pieces of silver, the supposed prophecy could not 
have been referred to Jeremiah instead of Zachariah 
where it seems properly to’ belong. That is not what we 
mean when we speak of the inerrancy of the Scriptures. 
We mean, for example, that when the gospels tell us that 
Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born 

125 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


of the virgin Mary, that he died a sin-offering, that he 
rose from the grave with the marks of his passion in 
his body, and that he walked on the sea and stilled the 
tempest, and fed a multitude of people with a few loaves 
and fishes, they are telling us what is fact. In this true 
and proper sense, the inerrancy of the Scriptures is 
plainly declared, both in-the Confession and in the Brief 
Statement” (The Presbyterian, Dec. 20, 1923, pp. 7, 8). 

To conclude. We may list the matters which have 
caused difficulty in accepting the truth and correctness of 
the accounts in Scripture as follows: 

1. Questions of so-called Lower Criticism. These 
concern the text as such, and bring to light evident errors 
of copyists; etc. Hardly any difficulty is any more felt 
in any quarter on this point. 

2. Statements which reflect the impressions of ordi- 
nary experience; as, the rising of the sun; the earth as 
the center of the universe; etc. 

3. Seeming contradictions; such as, “God is not 
man that He should repent’”’ as against: ““And it repented 
the Lord.” An honest exegesis will easily take care of 
this, as it takes into account the absolute Divine stand- 
point as against impressions from the human side. 

4. Difficulty as to the accuracy of historical fact; as, 
the “census that was first made when Cyrenius was 
governor of Syria’; so many unexpected archeological 
discoveries have been made that it is wise to hold every 
such question in abeyance if there is any real difficulty 
at present. 

5. Quotations from the Septuagint at variance with 
the original Hebrew text. It must be evident that the 
Holy Spirit has the right to quote Himself even to the 
extent of adding another meaning. 

6. Actual discrepancies such as we find in the parallel 

126 


THE DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION 


accounts of the Gospels. The Holy Spirit does not 
anxiously descend to the mechanical level of infinite 
precision; He does not parade Himself to our view. 

7. The difficulties involved in the construction of 
doctrine. Scripture as the wonder-work of Divine wis- 
dom is not given us in a cut-and-dried fashion, on the 
level of the child-mind, but in such a manner as to tax 
the best efforts of man in order that he may trace out 
and assimilate the marvelous wisdom of God. This 
makes so-called Dogmatic Theology a study which re- 
quires the ripest mental powers and a comprehensive 
vision of the general field, guided by assured principles 
and carefully ascertained results of exegesis. Our present 
times of speed and superficiality in which the newspaper 
reporter speaks as confidently of theological questions 
as the professor of theology, is not favorable to this 
branch of learning, and we are constantly treated to 
hearing most bizarre attempts, as, e.g., a defense of the 
idea that “God grows”’! 


127 


CHABPER Vill 


CREEDS AND STANDARDS: THEIR SIGNIFI- 
CANCE AND FUNCTIONS 


A Creed is a formal summary of fundamental points 
of religious belief, setting forth in an authoritative way 
on the part of a Church its views of faith and practice. 
Summaries of this kind are also called ‘Standards’. The 
definition of this word contributes towards the under- 
standing of its nature, functions and values. The Stan- 
dard Dictionary thus defines the word: “A standard is 
a flag, ensign, or banner, considered as a distinctive 
emblem of a government, body of men, or special cause 
or movement. Hence, any type, model, example, or 
authority with which comparison may be made; any 
fact, thing, or circumstance forming the basis for adjust- 
ment and regulation; a criterion of excellence; test.” 
This word ‘standard’ therefore as applied to the formulary 
of a Church has this function, that, having been 
established on behalf of and with the consent of the 
membership, it conveys a concise construction of the 
Christian faith. As such it is an official document with 
which comparison may be made in order the more readily 
to determine the correctness of what is to be held in such 
a Church as their view of the general and fundamental 
content of Scripture. Agreement with such a standard 
determines the right of any one being a proper adherent 
of such a communion. 

Along with Dogmatic Theology few good words are 

128 


CREEDS AND STANDARDS: SIGNIFICANCE AND FUNCTIONS 


spoken these days in favor of Creeds and Standards. 
In a rather supercilious way they are sometimes repre- 
sented as being “mummeries”, mere formalities which 
are being “mouthed”. They have been called “canned 
goods”. It has been affirmed that our “thinking youth” 
admit an inability of “‘getting behind the words of the 
Creeds” ; and this inability may also be applied to a large 
number of older folks. 

We want to ask, How is it possible that it should be 
such an objectionable matter to have Creeds and Stand- 
ards? Do not all schools of thought and various 
associations of men have to some degree these more or 
less definite formularies which serve to inform those 
who belong to them, and others, as to their exact charac- 
ter? A political party has its platform; a school of 
medicine has certain ideas in regard to disease and its 
cure; whatever systems of philosophy there have ever 
been, set forth their own distinctive principles. 

What necessity has led to the formulation of Creeds? 
Simply this: the exceeding riches, the wide compass, and 
the depth of significance of the wisdom of God with 
which the finite mind of man has ever struggled to 
comprehend and assimilate it. The brightest minds and 
the choicest spirits have found their most exalted occu- 
pations in seeking to fathom the profound ways and 
thoughts of God. They have not fully agreed. Different 
types of belief have arisen; as, Greek and Roman 
Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheran and Reformed Prot- 
estantism and their numerous subsidiary forms charac- 
terizing the Baptist, the Methodist, the Unitarian, the 
Adventist, etc. All these are so specific in their general 
type of thought and practise that they must live in 
separate organization in order harmoniously to carry out 
their views. And these beliefs and practices are known 


129 


' THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


by their Creeds—the definite setting forth of their par- 
ticular beliefs. 

Can this Creed formation be dispensed with in our 
present state of existence? Is it superfluous? Must the 
Church be a heterogeneous jumble of all kinds of indi- 
vidual beliefs getting along with each other as best they 
can? In other spheres of thought it is a mark of quality 
to have definition and precision: must this be an excep- 
tion in religion? How extremely particular our law- 
makers are in the phraseology of their statutes. What 
scrupulous care the legal profession exercises in the 
delivery of opinions. How marvelously exact the language 
of the decisions of the Supreme Court! Why should 
expression be denied to the great basic principles on 
which an entire structure of doctrine rests, the things 
pertaining to the revelation of the All-wise God and for 
the tremendous eternal concerns of man? 

The idea that in dispensing with Creeds churches are 
after all better off, is a delusion and a- snare. Thinking 
people have certain general, well-defined ideas in regard 
to what they view as constituting the teaching of the 
Bible, and these can most harmoniously be practiced in 
separate households of faith. Even the Baptist in his 
determination to do without a Creed has at least the 
unwritten belief in adult baptism, immersion as the only 
correct mode, and other matters. They even have their 
individual churches which more or less definitely range 
themselves on orthodox or modernistic lines. They 
stand upon some basis which though not authoritatively 
promulgated, is practically a standing upon a creed. More 
than people are aware of or want to own, they have their 
private range of beliefs, couched in a more or less logical 
system which they have gained from their previous 
education. To all intents and purposes these are their 

130 


CREEDS AND STANDARDS: SIGNIFICANCE AND FUNCTIONS 


standards by which they measure the quality and correct- 
ness of the beliefs of others, even though they are 
unwritten. 

However, these considerations do not fully account 
for the general aversion to Creeds. There is something 
more vital at the bottom of it. 

First of all, we shall refer to ignorance of Scripture 
and indolence in acquiring its facts and contents as 
playing a great role. When it is affirmed that our young 
people are not interested and that they cannot get behind 
the expressions of the Creeds, it is largely an indication 
of. ignorance which is aided by the natural bent of the 
sinful heart to entertain an aversion to the things of the 
Spirit of God. No one needs to say that the language 
and the ideas of the Creed are so incomprehensible to 
the alert youth of our land, least of all to those who 
in our schools grapple with the problems of mathematics 
and the abstruse ideas of philosophy. Intelligent study 
of the Scriptures cannot avoid the necessity of coming 
to some comprehensive construction of the material. A 
question like that pertaining to the Deity of Christ must 
be faced, nolens volens, and in connection with it his 
nature and origin. And even the ministry is much to 
blame in living too much on the superficial plane of 
practical affairs, at home in the realm of shallow thought, 
interested in sports and the like more than in the 
mysteries of the Kingdom cf God to which their high 
calling claims the highest if not the chief attention. But 
even then all ages and conditions of men will get their 
religious ideas. In some unsought way religious problems 
will force themselves on one’s attention. Errorists have 
a way of charming with specious reasoning and appealing 
to some hidden natural prejudice and make ardent dis- 
ciples for their particular cause. Systematic and well- 


131 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


advised training has been neglected so long that the 
balance-wheel of the mind has gone wild, and an arbitrary 
subjectivism, a disposition to obey every whim of the 
fancy, has full sway in our times. Thus superficial ideas, 
whose content and bearing have not been seen, preémpt 
the mind against better things. 

A second reason to account for the aversion to Creeds 
is hostility against the doctrines which are therein set 
forth. The regular Creeds have been carefully construct- 
ed and have brought out the deep things of God in such 
a pointed manner as to challenge the submission of a 
self-sufficient reason. The hurry of the times which does 
not take leisure to stop for quiet consideration has 
brought a mass of impressions which are immature, 
distorted, mistaken, and wild of control: they who hold 
them chafe at the restraints of a well-ordered arrange- 
ment. The average thinker of this day is individualistic; 
he knows it all; he is a law unto himself; even though 
he professes reverence for the Bible and the Savior. 
Their objection that the Creeds create formalists is a 
contusion of reference. Of course we all disapprove of 
formalism. But the objection in question really has in 
mind quite a different thing: it is opposed to certain 
doctrines which these Creeds set before them and which 
they resent. 

Then there is the objection that religion is not merely 
a system of doctrine but a life, a “spirit, a radiating, 
saturating influence”. This divorces feeling from fact, 
and makes existence an abstraction. On this principle 
the emotional pantheist, the contemplative Buddhist meet 
all the requirements of religion, and the “only Name 
given under heaven among men whereby we must be 
saved’, is a case of extravagant demand. However, 
religion is a definite relation to the Living God, one who 

132 


CREEDS AND STANDARDS: SIGNIFICANCE AND FUNCTIONS 


has revealed Himself definitely in regard to the way in 
which He demands service. We are to know His charac- 
ter and must worship and serve Him in the way which 
accords with these requirements. To be safe, we are to 
proceed on the premises laid down by God Himself. We 
have the concrete instances of God’s working, as it shows 
forth His grace on the background of history which is 
thus related to us creatures of time and connected with 
forms. Even if it should be no more than equivocation, 
it is damaging to the Christian faith for Canon Simpson 
to say: “There is no suffitient gospel in the Apostles’ 
Creed to save the proverbial church-mouse. Men and 
women are never saved by formulae. They are never 
redeemed by possessing information about God. I have 
yet to learn that it is the function of a Creed to save 
CVU Seats t. We can only believe in persons. We cannot 
believe in the Bible. We can only believe in God.’ Such 
a violent severance of fact and form can only do harm. 
The Apostles’ Creed furnishes us the great facts of the 
Christian religion, which facts are inextricably connected 
with the operation of the Holy Spirit for the apprehension 
of the truth and as He applies the redemption in Christ. 
The fact of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, 
_e.g.; belongs to the indispensable conditions of salvation: 
to know them and to refer them to the quality of the 
person and the purpose of their occurrence, — all this 
and more lies in the way of salvation. We believe in 
the Bible as we would believe in the voice of God could 
it be heard addressing us from the sky. Believing the 
Bible, we believe the words, and we believe the person 
who is inextricably woven up with His own Word in 
whatever form it comes to us. According to the Reform- 
ed principle of authority the identification of Scripture 
with the will of God is so complete that we call Scripture 


133 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


the principle of authority. Hence it is that the Creed 
as based upon Scripture is not merely a form, but 
becomes to the believing heart the very reality. In matters 
of locomotion the engineer of course may speak of the 
steam as the power needed, and they may, so to speak, 
be called the vital element, the parts of the engine being 
so much metal, still, as the latter holds the steam and 
directs its power, the entire engine is thought of as a 
unit, and as such is effective. 

As a further example of frightful thoughtlessness and 
conceit, you can read this in a prominent religious journal 
which prides itself on its high degree of intelligence and 
common-sense: “Our young people feel competent to 
make their own statements of faith.” Here is a com- 
bination of 1gnorance and temerity which challenges its 
equal. How unworthy of intellectual men to make such 
sweeping off-hand statements. As if the Word of God 
is such a simple thing and to be mastered on a casual 
perusal! As to the facility with which a Creed can be 
constructed the wise and sober words of Prof. D. P. D. 
Fabius, of the Free University of Amsterdam, are to the 
point: “The Confession of the Church is a labor of the 
ages. In the consecutive periods oi history all its 
doctrines have been arrived at as the result of compre-. 
hensive, thorough investigation. Indeed, the Church has 
been obliged to follow up to the very roots all different 
views. Whence the statement of a doctrine must be the 
conclusion of a laborious process, even though in a 
certain sense it may have something tentative about it, 
for the possibility of revision is never excluded. Vain 
conceit, o man, that you in your short life and with your 
weak powers should have to perform all these labors 
anew with as much success! And the Confession is more 
than an indispensable regulative bond. As the work of 

134 


CREEDS AND STANDARDS: SIGNIFICANCE AND FUNCTIONS 


centuries it has authority even though not unconditional.” 

However great the value of a Confession is, it must 
also be noted that no one pretends that it stands above 
the Bible or takes the place thereof. It always professes 
to stand squarely and unreservedly upon it. And where 
doubt in regard to a doctrine obtains, the appeal is 
directly to Scripture as the final authority. The Confes- 
sion of Faith published at Basel in 1534 says: “All these 
articles of faith remain subject to the judgment of the 
Holy Scriptures to whom we owe obedience.” And so 
say all the Confessions. A Creed is simply a digest, an 
epitome of the doctrinal contents of the Bible. It aims 
to give this content in an orderly, comprehensive and 
carefully articulated form. It aims to do this with such 
scientific precision as the nature of the material will 
admit of. Hence, with a correct Creed we possess the 
Bible in fuller measure, just as a map will better give to 
the mind the total impression of a landscape than an 
attempt to visualize every square foot of the ground. 
Now the Bible is such a rich store-house of material, 
such a wonderful intertwining of history, poetry, 
prophecy, etc., that the most painstaking effort is 
necessary to present it in bird’s-eye view to the under- 
standing. The wealth of Divine thought and teaching is 
not laid down in a ready-to-hand, pre-digested form, 
lying in easy reach of everybody; but it is given in such 
a form as needs to be analyzed, assimilated and recon- 
structed in the consciousness of the examiner who 
represents the spirit of the time he lives in. As God’s 
work in nature has a fineness of texture which the most 
powerful microscope discloses (and have the limits been 
reached?), as each advance of science opens up new 
wonders and glories of the universe hitherto unsuspected, 
so the more marvelous organism of the Mind of the 


135 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


Holy Spirit, the Supreme Designer and Architect of all 
things, who “‘brooded” over the waters, by Whom all 
life is given, the Spirit of the Sevenfold Wisdom of God, 
has “‘moved” upon holy men of God to write The Book 
which even in its lowliness shows forth Divinity, and 
we may thence expect that it shall tax all the ingenuity 
of man to explore its “depths, lengths, breadths and 
heights. | 

When a society of believers organize themselves with 
certain beliefs and practices which find their expression 
in Creed and Confession, they must not be accused of 
“monopolizing religion”. This is a current misappre- 
hension. They are simply aiming to be true to the 
teaching of Scriptures as they see it, and which they must 
protect in their own jurisdiction. By so doing they do 
not question the reality of saving faith in others who 
disagree with them on divers doctrinal points and prac- 
tices. Indeed, they will invite brethren of other house- 
holds of faith to come with them to the Lord’s table and 
invite their ministers occasionally to preach the Word 
to them. In the latter case one will expect that courtesy 
will prevent any such one from trespassing upon the 
good nature of the audience from preaching what would 
be contrary to their religious convictions. 

The demand for acquiescence in the beliefs of a par- 
ticular denomination, whichever one it is, is a matter of 
good order and not one involving the determination of 
a state of grace. It is such a mistaken thing to represent 
the issues today as raising the latter point. And then the 
orthodox are singled out as so very intolerant. It is 
strange that the orthodox in particular must always get 
the stigma of intolerance! It looks very much as if this 
is of a piece of the view of the law-breaker who con- 
stitutionally hates the policeman, because he is always 


- 
Z£ 


139 


CREEDS AND STANDARDS: SIGNIFICANCE AND FUNCTIONS 


after him. Why should not good order have its in- 
tolerance as well as light has its intolerance of darkness? 
Any host will show intolerance to his guest if the latter 
persists to carry out ideas of his own in the former’s 
own establishment. It is passing strange that the eccle- 
siastical intruder must be granted loving tolerance whilst 
the servant in the house gets obloquy for his faithfulness. 
Broadness is good, but you may not make it toleration 
of error and treachery against your particular trust. 
There is sovereignty in every particular sphere of thought 
and life. Nothing would seem to be more self-evident 
than the right of any school or party to determine its 
own identity, indicate its marks and expect all who wish 
to be reckoned as adhering to such a view to be faithful 
to it, and when this can no more be done, then peacefully 
to withdraw where a better accord can be found. 

This brings up the question of heresy. Standard 
Dictionary thus defines the word: “Heresy is an opinion 
or doctrine, entertained by a professed adherent of a 
church, by a former member of it, or by one whose 
allegiance it claims, that is contrary to the fundamental 
or distinguishing tenets of that church.” Now, while 
science and law pride themselves on clear-cut distinctions, 
the great mass of men would not have it so in the church: 
there it becomes intolerance not to allow everything the 
right of domicile. The term heretic is hated by them. 
Self-contradiction must be allowed in the church under 
the plea of broadmindedness and love. Modernism in 
particular boasts of its better insight of the spirit of the 
Master and its practice of his virtues, but it frowns upon 
the obscurantism and backwardness of those who would 
remain true to their vows and to the well-considered 
truths of the saints of the ages. What scrambled ethics! 
The Modernist insists in the name of love that the in- 

137 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


truder have at least equal rights with the owner. Dr. E. 
H. Kistler correctly characterized the situation when 
he said: “For a man to preach a different attitude than 
the accepted one of his pulpit denomination is spiritual 
piracy.” Certainly! For divers passengers to mutiny 
against captain and crew and steer the ship in a wrong 
course and live under different regulations is mutiny. 
But what would you think of the ethics of the matter 
if these same mutineers should say, in trying to dissuade 
the captain and the crew from attempting to regain their 
lawful rule: “Be nice; don’t be so rude as to use force; 
allow us also full liberty of action even if it is different 
from your ways; pray, fulful the law of love and of 
Christ by showing this kindness and consideration!” 
The Auburn Seminary ‘Chapel. Bell’ comments on this 
statement of Dr. Kistler’s: “We submit that such a 
statement as that savors of intellectual slavery and 
sectarian autocracy. If a man believes that his denomi- 
national standards are not infallible it is his privilege 
and duty to stay in the denomination and correct them. 
Dr. Kistler’s doctrine is the essence of Roman Catholi- 
cism applied to Protestantism. It is of a piece with the 
whole wretched mess of heresy trials, denominational 
shibboleths and medieval cocksureness.”’ ‘This is out- 
spoken. However, is it “intellectual slavery” to be loyal 
to vows once taken? Is that “sectarian autocracy” when 
a minister does not need to stay where he is, not being 
subject to a Protestant Inquisition? That mutinous crew 
could talk after the same fashion. And should they be 
called to stand trial for their opposition to the established 
authority, they might possibly call the trial a “wretched 
mess’. When we do happen to have authority and when 
its sphere of operation is definitely circumscribed and 
vows are taken to maintain them, what system of ethics 
138 


CREEDS AND STANDARDS: SIGNIFICANCE AND FUNCTIONS 


does that Auburn Modernist have as his standard of 
ethical excellence? Furthermore, if a minister disagree 
with these Standards of his Church the way is open 
to make an attempt at correction. If the membership 
cannot so see it and decide to retain the age-old inter- 
pretation of the truths of Scripture the presumption is 
on their side, and surely the primary rights in the case, 
and the dissenter is honorable only then when he with- 
draws and seeks the place where he. can exercise his new 
views. There is opportunity enough for this purpose. 
The orthodox may be thought medieval, but in medieval 
times we can probably also find some sort of a rationalist. 
The orthodox is “cocksure”; so was Paul when he said: 
“I believe: therefore have I spoken.” And the Apostle 
John, he the one that always spoke of love, was very 
-cocksure. And we think the Modernist in particular is 
cocksure. But let him act honestly with it and go where 
he belongs, instead of intruding upon grounds which he 
has come to subvert. 

If a minister persists in holding doctrines in conflict 
with the Standards of his Church, it is incumbent upon 
such a Church to take action. The Christian Century is 
to be commended for its honesty in saying on the matter : 
“If a church forms a creed—we disapprove of creeds 
for ecclesiastical purposes as our readers very well 
know — but if a religious body does assume the re- 
sponsibility of framing a creed, it cannot escape the 
consequent and correlative responsibility of determining 
how seriously that creed is to be taken and how strictly 
it is to be regarded as a standard of doctrine.” And 
The Wall Street Journal said: “Ministers who do not 
believe what they professed to believe when they were 
ordained would resign their jobs if they had the self- 
respect of the business-men they are only too ready to 

139 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


lecture. Our modern preachers ready to start new 
philosophies, while clinging to old stipends, might show 
a more exact knowledge of the theology they discard.” 
And many more instances are on record of the secular 
press condemning the dishonesty of heretic ministers 
refusing to leave the Church whose tenets they promised 
to defend. : 

“We believe that men should be as free to teach as the 
winds are to blow. But we also believe that the Presby- 
terian Church is a church whose creed in the most explicit 
and unmistakable language commits its ministers to 
certain definite views of Christ and the Scriptures. No 
men should be ordained to the ministry in the Presby- 
terian Church who cannot cheerfully accept the doctrinal 
teachings; and to countenance in Presbyterian pulpits a 
teaching which violates the creed of the church is as 
contrary to right as it is contrary to common sense” 
(The Nation). 

There would be nothing strange in any other walk of 
life to enforce fundamental rights. But what an outcry 
arises when such enforcement is attempted within a 
church! The hue is raised: “Heresy-hunting!” “Heresy 
trial!’ All are familiar with the cheap device by means 
of which even a good man or cause can acquire a mark 
of dishonor which can not easily be removed. It consists 
in assiduously cultivating a slanderous report and spread- 
ing it all around. If it succeds in attaching a label made 
fast in the prejudices of the public it will require great 
courage to meet it. But must a man, must a church of 
sterling character fear? In times of wide-spread rebellion 
in a civil state it requires extraordinary courage to defend 
almost single-handed the honor of the flag. Traitors will 
seek to overcome such loyalty with cries of “disciplin- 
arian’’, “martinet’’, “reactionary”, etc. But no man of 

140 


CREEDS AND STANDARDS: SIGNIFICANCE AND FUNCTIONS 


sterling rectitude should be so swerved from his con- 
victions. No one should be afraid of calling a man a 
heretic or joining others in a careful determination there- 
of. These things must not be lightly done, neither must 
controversy be sought for its own sake. “Ecclesiastical 
controversy is unavoidable when a principle has found 
entrance into the church which is foreign to her and 
threatens her identity, and when at the same time a 
powerful operation of her own life-principle obtains”’ 
(Prof. Rutgers). And is the situation as serious as this? 
_ Listen once more to the radical, but honest Christian 
Century’ “How deep-going is the Modernist-Fundamen- 
talist controversy?...... Or are the fundamentalists 
right in claiming that the issue is a grave one, going to 
the root of religious conviction and involving the basic 
purposes and almost the genius of Christianity itself? 
A candid reply to such inquiries must be one of agree- 
ment with the fundamentalist claim. The differences are 
not mere surface differences, but they are foundation 
differences, amounting in their radical dissimilarity al- 
most to the differences between two distinct religions.... 
Two world-views, two moral ideas, two sets of personal 
attitudes have clashed...... Christianity according to 
fundamentalism is one religion. Christianity according 
to Modernism is another religion...... Two worlds 
have crashed, the world of tradition and the world of 
modernism. One is scholastic, static, authoritarian, indi- 
Vidualistic; the other is vital, dynamic, free, social” 
(Jan. 3, 1924). 

This outspoken Modernist view agrees with as out- 
spoken an opinium of the orthodox champion, Dr. 
Machen: “The plain fact is, disguised though it be by 
the use of traditional language, that two mutually ex-_ 
clusive religions are contending for the control of the 

TAT 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


Presbyterian Church. One is the great redemptive 
religion known as Christianity; the other is the natural- 
istic or agnostic Modernism, essentially the same, I 
suppose, as the religion of the Positivists, or of Prof. 
Elwood, which is opposed, not at one point, but at every 
point, to the Christian faith.” 

Such a situation justifies any attempt to ward off the 
impending dangers, to cut out the cancer. We cannot 
afford to deceive ourselves at the cost of life and must 
grapple with the horrid monster of heresy. Says Kuyper: 
‘To deny the idea of heresy is in its last analysis a denial 
of the Scriptures as a special revelation of God. No 
heresy, but then also no church of Christ with a spirit 
of its own. No heresy, but then also we shall have to 
return to the lament of Pilate and say: ‘What is truth?’ 
Or else we shall have to gird ourselves for the task of 
a Sisyphus of ever searching for the truth. It is therefore 
altogether correct that the Modernist will not hear of. 
heresy, but for us to confess Christ according to the 
Scriptures and at the same time to ignore the right of 
existence of the idea of heresy, is inconsistent and a lack 
of insight.”’ 

To ignore the idea of heresy is disloyalty and lawless- 
ness. An Elder in The Presbyterian rather sharply but 
truly writes: ““Now, is the minister who breaks the laws 
of his denomination less culpable than the bootlegger 
who breaks the law of his country? Do not both give 
practically the same reason for so doing; the bootlegger, 
because it curbs his personal liberty, and the minister 
because it restrains his freedom of speech. But is not 
the real reason the same too? The bootlegger makes 
money out of his defiance of the law, and the minister 
draws a good salary while he preaches contrary to the 
teaching of his denomination. Of course, one would not 

142 


‘\ 


CREEDS AND STANDARDS: SIGNIFICANCE AND FUNCTIONS 


expect such an unprincipled man as a bootlegger to give 
up his unlawful business because of conscientious 
scruples; but should not a minister, who does not hold 
to the teachings of his denomination take the high moral 
grounds that he is taking money under false pretense, and 
quit his pulpit? There is no such thing as absolute free- 
dom either of action or of speech, without infringing civil 
or ecclesiastical law. So why tolerate either lawbreaker ? 
Are not both boot-leggers, in the sense that they are law- 
breakers and peddlers of poison?” (Jan. 17, 1924). 

How differently have they acted who stood for the 
right and were hindered in so doing. We will only 
remind the reader of the heroism of the four hundred 
ministers in the great Scottish Disruption who left their 
churches, manses and salaries for conscience sake. 

But to be fair, we must listen to what is said in 
justification of the course of the Modernists in remain- 
ing where they are. By what method of reasoning do 
Modernists justify themselves in remaining in their 
church afhliations though opposed to the Standards? 
The Christian Century of April 12, 1923, quotes Prof. 
C. P. Fagnani, of Union Theological Seminary, as 
follows: “A little reflection ought to show that an honor- 
able man, a loyal man, one who really cares for the 
Church, instead of resigning and withdrawing and 
shirking responsibility, is conscientiously bound to remain 
in it and bring as many of his brethren as possible around 
to his way of thinking. Yes, it is his bounden duty to 
stand his ground and proclaim the truth as he sees it. 
He must staunchly refuse to withdraw of his own accord 
no matter how much averse he may personally feel to 
mere notoriety, strife and contention.” 

The important element Prof. Fagnani overlooks is that 
such a minister has subscribed to adhere to the Standards 

143 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


of the Church and so promised to defend them; his 
bounden duty is to be true to his word or to readjust 
himself. One may stand for his beliefs and bring as 
many people around to them as possible, but he may not 
honorably do so inside the denomination whose doctrine 
he has definitely accepted: this is mutiny and treason. 
But to stand outside and ‘fight thence, is in accord with 
every notion of legitimate warfare. Responsibilities will 
not be shirked by fighting from the outside, and bounden 
duty can much better be performed from that direction. - 
Double-dealing, even in a good cause, must be condemned 
by every honest man. | 

In our remarks we may have given offense to 
moderate liberals who do not wish to be classed with 
rationalists, possibly not even with Modernists, but who - 
insist that they are true Presbyterians. But how can the 
“innocent bystander” escape being hit by stray bullets 
when he is dangerously near the crowd of mutineers? 
An outspoken, unequivocal stand, either on one side or 
on the other is the way of truth and safety today. 

It is the opinion of many (Unitarians included) that 
the 150 Presbyterians who signed the “Affirmation” 
occupy a disingenuous position. They indeed profess 
adhesion to the Standards, and they fortify themselves 
with a special confession of their faith which, as far as 
it goes, looks good. But they are careful to add that the 
Confession does not commit them to certain theories of 
certain doctrines. But this is the very point at issue. 
In the light of recent history their profession does not 
square with fact. Why is it necessary to make such a 
strenuous effort to set themselves right before the 
Standards? Why all this ado to justify the Presbytery 
of New York? Why must this Presbytery be upheld 
when it licences men who refuse to declare full belief in 

144 


CREEDS AND STANDARDS: SIGNIFICANCE AND FUNCTIONS 


the Standards? Why must preaching which is decidedly 
off-color be defended? The key to the whole situation 
is that these brethren do not stand four-square to the 
Standards of the Church, when they allow of interpre- 
tations which compromise the clear wording of the 
Standards. Such actions are not, as they want it to 
appear, broadminded; on the contrary, they are disloyal 
and untrue. They invade the Scripture principle of the 
Reformation. 

Liberals who have subscribed to a Creed hold that a 
wide latitude of interpretation of such a Creed should 
be allowed. But it must be clear that such an idea of a 
Creed is inconsistent with its very nature—its express 
purpose; which is, definitely to state the particular 
beliefs of a Church. In their Pastoral Letter of 1923 
the American Episcopal bishops said: “To deny, or to 
treat as immaterial, belief in the creeds in which at 
every regular service of the Church both minister and 
congregation profess to believe is to trifle with words 
and cannot but expose us to the suspicion of dishonesty 
and unreality.” Similarly The Christian Century said: 
“Tf the church means by its creed to define precisely the 
theology of all its ministers—and that seems to be the 
implication—then the church should act upon that theory 
and protect itself from variant forms of teaching. But 
meanwhile there come clear indications that this great 
denomination [the Anglican and American Episcopal 
Churches] does not really hold to that theory........ 
And the Archbishop of Canterbury says: ‘The study of 
theology imperatively demands freedom for its con- 
ditions. To tell a man to study, and yet bid him, under 
heavy penalties, to come to the same conclusions as those 
who have not studied, is to mock him’. So the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury supports, as it seems, the general 


145 


| 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


sentiment of the English Church, that, whatever the 
creed does mean in the life of the Church, it does not 
mean that freedom of thought and speech is to be limited 
by its formulations. Some of us think that the creeds 
have become excess baggage, that the churches would be 
all better off without them. But as long as they remain, 
no church 1s entitled to avoid the embarrassments which 
they entail by requiring the alleged heretic to be his own 
judge, jury and executioner” (Apr. 13, 1923). To be 
sure, these things were the very reasons for which the 
Creeds were formulated, and subscription denoted ac- 
quiescence with them, honest and straightforward. But 
no one is bound to remain identified with its plain teach- 
ings. Therefore if anyone feels a so-called ‘gravamen’, 
the constitutions of the churches indicate a way in which 
it may be considered: there is, in greater or lesser degree, 
a possibility of revision, to meet the altered views which 
may have arisen. But if this revision cannot be procured, 
that is, if the church after due investigation still holds 
fast to its creed, there is no way out for an honest 
dissentient than to resign his connection with a church 
with whose credal requirement he cannot agree. He must 
respect the church in its beliefs and a church will not 
take such a resignation ill. No one is compelled to belong 
to a church, but if he so elects, he does so voluntarily 
because he accords with its doctrinal and_ practical 
requirements. 

Closely related to this is the feeling that subscription 
to a Creed after all fetters free thought and binds the 
conscience. To repeat once more the words of the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury: “The study of theology impera- 
tively demands freedom for its condition. To tell a man 
to study, and yet to bind him, under heavy penalties, to 
come to the same conclusions as those who have not 

146 


CREEDS AND STANDARDS: SIGNIFICANCE AND FUNCTIONS 


’ 


studied, is to mock him.” But this is well answered by 
the Episcopal bishops of America in their Pastoral Letter 
of 1923: “So far from imposing fetters on our thought, 
the creeds, with their simple statements of great truths 
and facts without elaborate philosophical disquisition, 
give us a point of departure for free thought and 
speculation on the meaning and consequences of the facts 
revealed by God. The truth is never a barrier to thought. 
In belief, as in life, it is the truth that makes us free.” 

Absolute freedom is license, and near of kin to anarchy. 
Civil liberty is perfectly served in these United States 
of America by strict subjection to our national constitu- 
tion. When we rejoice in the freedom wherewith Christ 
has made us free, we do not object that his require- 
ments of service are definite and inexorable: these do 
not limit our freedom. Similarly, if one claims to belong 
to the Reformed household, he is enjoying certain bless- 
ings in the light of the Reformation; if he truly under- 
stands them, he will not feel any irksomeness or violence 
of his convictions, but a most cordial approval and whole- 
souled concurrence: he will not know how it could be 
otherwise. He cannot help himself from “coming to the 
same conclusions of thought” as others did. The very 
fact of perfect agreement is in his case as inescapable as 
the constancy with which the tables of multiplication 
always come true. Still we do not complain of the iron 
certainty of arriving at determinate results in our 
mathematical operations: we call it freedom. If then 
anyone in the household of Reformed faith feels un- 
comfortable therein, he is an alien; he is not of the same 
spirit; he builds on other generic foundations; he is a 
heretic; he belongs elsewhere and should go there. A 
Reformed theologian proceeds from such principles as 
must issue in a uniformity of general results. 

147 


CHAPTER IX 
ARE THE STANDARDS MEDIEVAL? 


Our Creeds and Standards speak of a range of subjects 
which are not casual or arbitrary: they lie in the very 
nature of things. Almost any religion presents these very 
subjects in some form or degree. And in Scripture cer- 
tainly they lie at the very surface and meet one at every 
turn. Nothing worth while can be given in their place. 
There is no so-called “reconstruction of theology’ possible 
if these subjects are left out of consideration. 

In a previous chapter we have adverted to the three 
great principles of authority, which, expressed in another 
form, is very nearly equivalent to saying, that there are 

-three great principles on which the material given by 
Scripture and in a measure issuing from human con- 
sciousness, is construed. We find the construction of this 
material in our Creeds and Standards. These exhibit the 
definitely established beliefs of the Church as it has care- 
fully sought to construe them from the Scriptures. Thus 
we have the Apostles’ Creed, and, speaking as we do in 
this treatise only of things Protestant, the Confessions 
of the Reformation. 

Now the Liberal has raised the question that these 
Standards are medieval; that they are antiquated, static, 
misinterpretations of the real spirit and intent of 
Scripture. 

To meet this objection intelligently, we need first of 
all to make a distinction between those things which 
pertain merely to the form as over against those things 
which pertain to the matter. The great Confessions of 

148 


ARE THE STANDARDS MEDIEVAL? 


Faith date from the days of the Reformation. It can be 
granted that some expressions in them remind one of 
these times; and its phraseology may now and then be 
severe. But we are persuaded that objection against the 
Standards does not really turn on these points, as little 
as the antiquated diction of Shakespeare troubles the 
modern student, or the language of the civil courts, also 
rather ancient, gives offense to the eminent and cultured 
gentlemen of the bar. When the charge of medievalism 
is made against the Standards, it is really leveled against 
their material content. The quaint language is apt to be 
used as a lens to magnify the biased fancy. And so the 
objection actually turns upon things which relate to the 
integrity of Reformed Theology. And hence there is a 
suppressed desire for revision in the direction of newer 
ideas which are in conflict with much that is contained 
in the Standards. 

We must remind ourselves once more that we can 
best find our way by proceeding from some principle of 
authority. We trust all agree that for a Christian 
theology we must get our material from Scripture, how- 
ever we view it. Our Standards proceed from the 
Reformed principle. They give a theology that is com- 
prehensive and well-ordered in its development. When 
once the Reformed principle stands firm and is con- 
sistently worked out, the range of doctrinal conceptions 
become so clear that they cannot be mistaken. That of 
the Liberal is nebulous, for they issue from a large region 
of doubt in which statements of Scripture are accom- 
modated or cut out to meet private judgments. So much 
so that the Modernist admits the vantage-ground which 
the orthodox occupies. Says The Christian Century: 
“Nor should the defenders of orthodoxy be blamed too 
severely for joining the issue and forming the party-of 

149 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


aggression. They have the creeds with them, and it may 
not be far wrong to say that they have the conventional 
view of the Bible with them. Modern theology is not 
Biblical in the old static sense of the term...... The 
assues which divide liberal and orthodox thought are 
indeed as fundamental if not more fundamental than 
those which come to light in the Reformation. As in 
the Reformation the basis of religious authority has been 
shifted. The Reformation substituted the Bible for the 
authority of the Church, and the new reformation re- 
places the authority of the Bible with the authority of 
the spirit and the life of Jesus.’ And Dr. Shailer 
Mathews, of the University of Chicago, also admits the 
radically different principles which underlie these two 
views. Thus he wrote in The North American Review: 
“Widely considered...... the threatened schism in Prot- 
estantism is a struggle between two so-called minds. 
Theological differences are only aspects of deeper differ- 
CHCES Mati can The Fundamentalist wishes to consider 
religion from the point of view of theology. Fundamen- 
talism is seventeenth century confessionalism redivivus. 
Modernism is a non-theological scientific application 
of the teaching and life of Jesus to twentieth century 
affairs.” | 

Evidently then it all becomes a choice between two 
radically different views. This is far too much over- 
looked. The moderate liberal seems to think that there 
is a middle ground between the two principles; at least, 
that the Reformed principle admits of a moderate inter- 
pretation, and they do not perceive that this is virtually 
taking position within the lines of the enemy: they have 
passed a definite boundary. Of course, it is always com- 
mendable to avoid extremes, but in this case the accord 
with common-sense and with popular notions and with 

150 


ARE THE STANDARDS MEDIEVAL? 


plausible impressions are not in evidence where clear-cut, 
precise demarcations obtain. Here is an immediate break 
with a principle which is evil, and whose logical course 
has ever shown up that way with increasing clarity. Our 
moderate liberals do not like to think so, but an honest 
liberal like The Christian Century sees it clearly and is 
outspoken. Listen to what it says: “How deep-going is 
the Modernist-fundamentalist controversy?........ Or 
are the fundamentalists right in claiming that the issue 
is a grave one, going to the roots of religious convictions 
and involving the basic purposes and almost the genius 
of Christianity itself? A candid reply to such inquiries 
must be one of agreement with the fundamentalist claim. 
The differences are not mere surface differences, but they 
are foundation differences, amounting in the radical 
dissimilarity almost to the differences between two dis- 
tinct religions...... Two world-views, two moral ideas, 
two sets of personal attitudes have clashed........ 
Christianity according to fundamentalism is one religion. 
Christianity according to modernism is another religion 
Sel Two worlds have crashed, the world of tradition 
and the world of modernism. One is scholastic, static, 
authoritarian, individualistic; the other is vital, dynamic, 
free, social” (Jan. 4, 1924). 

This should be enough to show that the question is 
not one merely of form such as time can remedy, but 
it 1s a question of identity. Modernism is but a newer 
form of an older system of thought. The Confessions 
of the time of the Reformation all proceed from one 
general principle, and it is noteworthy how great the 
general agreement between them is. No one can mistake 
their family likeness. Hence, too, the doctrines developed 
in the dogmatic theologies of Calvin, Turrettin, Voetius, 
Hodge, Shedd, Thornwell, Warfield, Kuyper, Bavinck, 


TST 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


and so many more, all of them cannot possibly avoid the 
same general range of subjects and treat them on the 
same general lines. They are as unchangeable as sin and 
as constant as its only remedy. If they are medieval they 
are in the same sense as bread and water are medieval. 
They are as “static” as the truth. They are ‘‘authori- 
tarian”’ as the will of the Most High. This makes them 
in the very truest manner vital, dynamic, free and social. 

It is therefore not a choice of the changing fashion, 
but one between well-defined alternatives. The choice is 
not as between dead formalism and a living faith. Neither 
between correct doctrine and correct living. But the 
choice is between reality and appearance, between correct 
doctrine and false doctrine, between the only true principle 
which underlies the truth in all its import and tendencies, 
and the false principle which appears plausible but has no 
basis in fact. Which choice will our Reformed and 
Presbyterian ministers and laymen make? It will not do 
to wave aside with an impatient gesture certain beliefs 
which at first are unpalatable to our natural judgments, 
but which may nevertheless prove directly to result from — 
our Scripture principle and so be founded in the depths 
of the Divine Mind. Charmed through words of much 
pretension and unction, many are swept off their feet 
when the man of modern culture begins to praise his 
breadth of vision. They are caught in the net because too 
little attention has been paid to estimating principles. It 
is well-known that for a long time there was little taste 
for the study of dogmatic theology, whence superficial 
ideas naturally came to prevail and many even lost the 
ability to think theologically. When then the various 
kinds of errorists come along with their plausible ideas 
urged with the enthusiasm of certainty, these people fall 
for it as they are resting upon a basis whose character 

152 


ARE THE STANDARDS MEDIEVAL? 


they have not guaged. The modern spirit of independence 
of any authority strongly asserts itself; every citizen feels 
strongly that he is a sovereign all by himself; he is self- 
sufficient; of course, this spirit must chafe at many an 
assertion of Scripture which runs directly contrary to it. 
This spirit justifies its attitude in viewing the other as 
“static” and it prides itself on its own excellence in 
satisfaction with its own “broadmindedness’’. 

Hence, we face a definite situation as to whether the 
man who accepts the Standards is in the right, call it 
broadmindedness or not, as you please, of being up-to- 
or out-of-date or no. Are the doctrines as contained in 
the Standards and which characterize Reformed theology, 
true? Are they resting upon a sound basis? Are they 
generic to the principle which underlies them? If not, 
then of course they need to be revised, the sooner the 
better and as radically as need be. But if these doctrines 
are really Reformed and naturally flow forth from their 
principle, how can departure from them comport with 
broader vision? Are we to depart from the truth in 
deference to prevailing views, to fashion, to whims and 
to expediency? 

It is urged, that there is a development in theology as 
well as anywhere else. And has not Robinson of Leyden 
said, that he was persuaded that “still more light would 
break forth from the Word of God’? He is right; but 
in what way will this additional light break forth? We 
cannot as yet get away from the only three principles in 
accordance to which such light must come; either on the 
Roman Catholic principle, on the Rationalist or on the 
Reformed principle. To proceed on any one of them is 
to destroy the integrity of the other two. There is a 
radical disagreement between the Modernist and the 
Reformed views. There is a development of theology 


153 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


on the Modernist basis, but from the Reformed point 
of view this is not development but a departure farther 
and farther away from the truth. It is self-deception on 
the part of even the moderate liberals that they can 
successfully carry through a milder interpretation of the 
Standards and still claim to be Reformed. It is called 
being “up-to-date” and “progressive’’, but it is defection 
from the truth, retrogression, revolution, Far from being 
up-to-date it is a reversion to the days of Porphyry and 
Celsus, and the Standards of the Reformation are, as 
compared with these men, of very “modern” date. Our 
Standards are by no means medieval but very much of 
pertinence and value to our present times. 

Indeed, the orthodox actually do believe in progress; 
they are not static, fossilized. To be fair, it must be 
granted that the Reformed of the eighteenth century 
conceived of Reformed theology in that way. “Dr. Adolf 
Zahn, of Stuttgart, used to say that when Calvin had 
finished his Institutes of the Christian Religion, the Holy 
Spirit had spoken His last word. Liberals are of the 
opinion that the Confessionalists are forced to take the 
position of Dr. Adolf Zahn.” But this is an extreme 
position and not shared by the great majority of 
Reformed theologians. And Dr. Steffens asks pointedly : 
“Are we obliged either to continually eat hash, the food 
of the stationary, or to accustom ourselves to eat the 
hasty-pudding of the progressives? That is not the 
alternative. There is a stability which comports with 
progress. Such stability makes movement sure and 
leading to good results. The combination, yes, the unity 
of the stationary and the progressive elements in nature 
is, as it were, an object lesson how necessary both are 
for the creation of a well-directed and sustained move- 
ment. May we not apply this to the spiritual domain of 

154 


ARE THE STANDARDS MEDIEVAL? 


Church life? In the combination and co-operation of the 
stationary and progressive forces in the Church of Christ. 
we find a rational expectation of great things to be 
accomplished in the fear of God, while antagonism be- 
tween them would lead to a frightful catastrophe...... 
on the Confessional basis the Church ought to move on, 
not in an arbitrary, jerky manner, but in harmony with 
the principles which form the special tendency of the 
Churches of the Reformation, developing them into a 
strong life and inciting them to energetic activity...... 
Principles and progress combined give a healthy tone to 
conservatism, and keeps Christians from rushing into the 
arbitrariness and lawlessness of a reckless liberalism’. 
And although we may not identify the objective truth 
with our subjective apprehension of the same, nevertheless 
we must strive to reach out after it, and we shall do this 
in the right way only then when the Scripture principle 
of the Reformation is our guiding principle: this alone 
will lead on to true progress whilst the Modernist with 
his pulling down of the labor of ages is but building on 
sand and constantly shifting his position even there. 

We need but point to some of these great doctrines of 
Reformed theology to show how impossible it is to escape 
from them, and how they compel us to formulate them on 
well-considered lines. What is more permanent than the 
Reformed construction of the doctrine of God as far as 
we have it? Note His self-existence, His personality, 
spirituality, eternity, omnipresence, righteousness and 
holiness, His mercy and His love. The Standards furnish 
nothing medieval about this. From the modernistic camp 
you get ideas which rob Him of His personality; some 
have said He is finite and helpless before events; that He 
is “growing’’; that He has framed a universe with laws 
from whose tyranny even He cannot escape. 


155 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


The doctrine of the Trinity owes its present well-nigh 
complete construction not to medieval times but goes very 
much farther back, even to the early Christian centuries. 
These men have so marvelously considered the problem 
from every point of view and so exhaustively compared 
Scripture with Scripture that since their day scarcely any- 
thing has been added. All that the Modernists have done 
is to approach a suspicious doctrine of Unitarianism. The 
Unitarians themselves have said that it is “inconceiva- 
ble” that this has been overlooked. And how they think 
of the ethical side of the matter is seen in a paper signed 
by twenty-seven Unitarians, headed by Charles W. Eliot, 
former president of Harvard. They say: “With all 
courtesy and consideration, let us make it plain that reli- 
gious teachers who play with words in the most solemn 
relations of life, who make their creeds mean what they 
were not originally intended to mean, or mentally reject 
a formula of belief while outwardly repeating it, cannot 
expect to retain the allegiance of men who are accustomed 
to straight thinking and square dealing.” 

The doctrine of Justification by Faith apart from 
works as contributing to a claim upon eternal life, was the 
life-giving power of the Reformation. It brought spirit- 
ual life to Europe. We agree largely with this statement 
in the Form of Concord of the Lutheran Church: “This 
article on Justification is chief among all the Christian 
doctrines ; without it, it is not possible to obtain true and 
solid consolation for a disturbed conscience, nor rightly to 
know the riches of grace. This Dr. Luther also confirm- 
ed when he said: ‘If this single doctrine be held in all 
sincerity, then the Christian Church shall endure genuine, 
harmonious and without division; but if. this doctrine 
become corrupted, then it is impossible that the Church 
can successfully counter error or a fanatical spirit’ ”’. 

156 ‘ 


ARE THE STANDARDS MEDIEVAL? 


And this doctrine has not been advanced in any degree 
by Modernism. Its insistence upon the fruits of faith is 
nothing new, but its speaking of the glorious fruits 
without recognizing the root of faith is as old as 
rationalism and infidelity, going far back of the medieval 
days, even to the day when the Serpent talked with our 
first parents. The Modernist insistence upon the showing 
of love and service has never been denied by the Reform- 
ers and has been practiced by them to a larger degree 
than they have credit for them. The Dutch Calvinists 
were the most tolerant folks in Europe in their day and 
harbored Jews and Arminians while the latter, though in 
their creed they had extolled the love of God, were harsh 
towards the Calvinists when these Arminians were in 
power. And the Reformed Churches of The Netherlands 
and America have magnified the office of the deacon 
whose particular function it is to care for the poor and 
distribute such gifts with words of spiritual comfort, 
while outside of these circles this has become a matter of 
collecting money for running expenses sometimes entrust- 
ed to boys and girls. 

In sum, the Modernist view of salvation is very largely 
that of acquiring the righteousness of God through 
works; Christ being largely the example to copy after, 
but the sinner is to “pull himself up by his own boot- 
straps’. Our Standards indicate in language as clear as it 
is edifying the grace and the love of God which applies 
the merits of the cross to the contrite heart. That is not 
medievalism: the cancer of sin is still with us, but how 
many of our modern spiritual physicians are failing to 
use the only possible remedy for the desperate disease ? 

To show what becomes of Scripture when the Modern- 
ist proceeds to a reconstruction of theology on his lines 
we will pass on a book written by Dr. R. F. Horton with 

157 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


the title: “Reconstruction”. The review of this book in 
Christian Work of Aug 26, 1915, has the title: “A Help 
to Doubters.”’ This book at the very outset breaks with 
sound principles: the whole structure is based upon sand 
and is sure to bring chaos and to overthrow what it aims 
to support. We quote: ‘The object of the book is to 
restate the Christian religion in such a way that it may 
lay a new claim upon the thought of our time and heal 
the breach between the spirit and the intellect.’’ In short, 
it teaches that truth has always been progressing; the 
New Testament is better than the Old Testament; since 
New Testament days Christianity has gone on in new 
developments; “Christianity as a living principle in the 
world was bound to seize the growing thought of men, 
and assimilate all discoveries in nature and in life; for 
God lives and ‘works hitherto’, and it is his living work 
and not the record of the past that constitutes the essen- 
tialestruth «of Christianity... 22 3. 3. George Fox, the 
founder of Quakerism, said that the best use of the Bible 
was made when a man passed beyond the Bible itself to 
the changeless life and power of which it spoke”. Thus 
Dr. Horton disparages Scripture as our reliable source 
of authority and glorifies the principle of evolution which 
still goes on in the processes of human thought. This 
makes the issue as clear as it can be between Scripture as 
our only authority for faith and life, on the one hand, 
and the Reason pure and simple, on the other. According 
to the proposed reconstruction of the religious truth, 
Scripture is largely antiquated, and useful only in so far 
as man judges it ought to be. The enlightend modern 
mind has advanced to that power of discernment that 1t 
can sift from Scripture its valuable elements, and with the 
new and better material which the consciousness of 
modern attainment has furnished it will be able to con- 
153 


ARE THE STANDARDS MEDIEVAL? 


struct a higher and better system of theology than ever 
was possible. Now Reformed theology has always held 
to Scripture in its entirety as God’s definite and final re- 
velation to man. The fulness of truth is in the Bibie 
we must study it to tind its immense extent, but we may 
not set any of its teachings aside nor go beyond it. The 
book makes the fundamental mistake of substituting 
subjective opinion for objective reality. Hence it is 
suggestive that when Dr. Horton exalts Reason as a 
source of authority above the Bible he takes very largely 
the position of the Catholics and the Mystics. That is to 
say, Catholicism believes that inspiration has not ceased 
with the New Testament, so that new revelation is being 
given by means of the Pope; in like manner Dr. Horton 
believes in Christianity as such a force as brings forth 
new statements of truth which may go beyond the Bible. 
Similarly the Mystic gains views of religion which are 
not derived from Scripture but which well up from his 
own heart. 

The book finds fault with the Apostles’ Creed because 
it does not include a ‘‘word concerning the life that was 
lived, the character that was presented, or the teaching 
that was given by him who was born of the Virgin Mary 
and suffered under Pontius Pilate. But it is inconceivable 
that we should state the truths of Christianity today 
without mentioning the Sermon on the Mount or the 
teaching which led up to the Cross.” That criticism 
sounds very beautiful! However, the trouble is that it 
is not safe to base religion first of all on what so readily 
may prove to be mere sentimentality. It is inexcusable 
to disparage the objective facts of Christianity and to 
rely upon a statement of duties and morals in which the 
Buddhist and the Confucianist can join us. And so mere 
religiousness without a definite objective .cannot com- 


159 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


mend itself in so readily sacrificing truth. The Apostles’ 
Creed therefore is correctly constructed in stating those 
basic facts which constitute Christianity. With this basis 
man is directed to the Living God and Jesus Christ whom 
He has sent; and thus repentance towards God can be 
preached and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the only 
Name given under Heaven whereby man must be saved. 

In what gross darkness the modern mind is apt to 
wrap itself and how the anchor of the soul is dragging 
midst buffeting waves, is evident from this amazing 
passage of the reviewer of Horton’s book: “We might 
well ask God for an inspired teacher with the width of 
vision, and the grasp of thought to understand and to 
state the point at which we find ourselves in the evolution 
of Christian truth. Many are striving to the best of their 
ability to see and to describe the position, and no effort, 
however humble, should be slighted; for it may be that 
the solution may come, not for one gifted seer, but from 
the contribution of all the seeking of devoted souls that 
are conscious of the need.” Alas! alas! when Modernism 
has snuffed out the light of Scripture and insists on 
pursuing the ignis fatuus of its own disordered vision, 
then this pitiful prayer must be offered up! But it will 
be as futile and gratuitous as the prayer of Dives in Hell. 
To-day father Abraham would answer once more: “They 
have Moses and the Prophets; aye, the Son in Whom 
God has last spoken: let them hear them!” 

Modernism, having cast off the old doctrines as 
medieval, finds itself necessarily very poor in its knowl- 
edge of Divine things. It feels that much needs to be 
done. But Horton thus comforts himself: “It is not 
necessary to wait for the reconstruction of the Gospel 
narratives for the elimination of the legendary and 
mythical elements. Jesus Christ stands before the life and 

160 


ARE THE STANDARDS MEDIEVAL ? 


imagination of men as a reality that sufficiently com- 
mends itself.” But the Modernist is viewing as reality 
what his sources forbid. So much legendary and mythical 
envelops him. How can he at this distance determine but 
what anything about him is only exquisite conception. 
How little the progressive revelation of insight has 
yielded, and that so, uncertain! What a confession of 
poverty that they must wait for a gifted seer! And for 
what purpose? What is any Christ needed for when his 
identity is in doubt and his character and deeds for man 
are of no necessary relation to his eternal welfare? Oh, 
how the riches of grace connected with a living Redeemer 
whose character and work we know, has taken wings on 
the Modernist showing! For according to the tenor of 
the review modern theology is only just beginning to 
find some tentative lines on which to proceed. Modernist 
Christianity is such an indefinable thing and so subject 
to change that the New York Evening Journal was right 
in remarking: “One of the endless embarrassments of the 
foreign missionary is that the native, sought to be 
converted, 1s unable to keep up with the constant 
innovations in the proffered faith.” 

We can also give a concrete instance of the doctrinal 
teaching of this reconstructed theology. It listens to 
Christ. It is ominous that the views of Paul are looked 
at askance. From Christ, then, it learns the correct idea 
of God, namely, that He is a Father. “When we firmly 
grasp the fact that it depends on the Fatherhood of God, 
and results from the historic personality of Jesus, we 
discover the real and unassailable starting-point for the 
reconstruction of Christian theology.” It is well that 
Dr. Horton will learn of Christ. But he should be willing 
to learn more of Him than he states. Modern theology 
is so obsessed by the love of God that it shuts its eye to 

161 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


the other attributes of God and to the real condition of 
the human heart. The fact is that Scripture teaches that 
the natural man is alienated from God and therefore 
fallen from sonship, and the Father has become a Judge. 
To the unregenerate of our day as well as to the Jews 
Jesus would say: “Ye are of your father the Devil!” 
And Jesus with the very solemn, double “Verilies!” told 
Nicodemus what the natural man needs or he cannot 
enter the Kingdom of God. According to Scripture the 
brotherhood of man in its widest extent 1s a brotherhood 
in the same condemnation, and only through repentance 
and faith in Jesus Christ can he again be restored by 
adoption to sonship in the family of Jesus Christ “of 
whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named”. 
The modern theological fad that God is the “Father of 
ali men” has given a general impression of universal 
salvation, and theologians have much to answer for in 
thus having deadened the sense of need of repentance 
in order to be saved. Modernism is the latter-day cul- 
tured form of folly at which Jehovah bade the “heavens 
be astonished and horribly afraid and very desolate. For 
my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken 
Me the Fountain of living waters, and have hewn out 
for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no 
water!” 

In view then of the fact that the doctrines of 
Christianity are definite, insomuch that there is no re- 
construction of them possible, how. mistaken the view 
of Prof. A. C. Zenos, who is reported to have said in 
the opening address at McCormick Theological Seminary 
in 1923: “Doctrinal systems are ever changing, and it 
will not stand that the system evolved for the nineteenth 
century will satisfy the twentieth century, and it follows 
that the next century will have another and a different 

162 


ARE THE STANDARDS MEDIEVAL? 


statement. Christianity cannot be confined to time- 
limitations nor to word limitations...... Christianity is 
the concrete induction from the sum-total of Christian 
experience and acts’. i... Vital experience of salvation 
through Christ.” 

This raises the further question that, let it be granted 
that a correct doctrinal construction of Christianity be 
obtainable, is this after all not negligible, because 
Christianity is most of all a matter of correct conduct 
and life? It is claimed that the Scriptures do not stress 
doctrine, and that a good life is the chief matter which 
is pleasing to God; that Jesus said little of doctrine; and 
that even Paul in I Cor. XIII laid the greatest stress 
upon love, and that the Epistles of John blossom out in 
scarcely anything else. 

While it is true that in religion mere knowledge is a 
dead thing, it is also true that it is needed for the proper 
exercise of life: knowledge becomes its food and support, 
its guide and control. Salvation is not merely a force, 
but it is founded in the wisdom of God exhibited in 
thoughts and deeds worthy of Him. Scripture speaks of 
the “mysteries” of God: they are the “deep things of 
God” which the angels desire to look into and which the 
redeemed sinner may least of all neglect. “It is the office 
of the Holy Spirit to present mysteries of salvation, the 
truths which relate to the mediation of Christ and the 
riches of His grace in so penetrating and transforming 
a manner, as to render them vital, operating principles, 
the food and the solace of our spirits. It is His office 
to afford that anointing by which we may know all things 
by a light which is not merely directive to the under- 
standing, but which so shines upon the heart as to give 
a relish of the sweetness of divine truth and effectually 
produce a compliance with its dictates” (Robert Hall). 

163 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


It is most edifying to read the accounts of the conversion 
and the spiritual experiences of many a humble saint of 
God (they were formerly much more in evidence than 
to-day) as they gave expression to their warm feelings, » 
dwelling upon the glories of the Redeemer, viewing the 
cross in the light of the incarnation, ascension, session 
at God’s right hand, etc. Their spiritual exaltation would » 
even dare upon some consideration of the mysteries of 
election, finding there, as far as we are permitted, food 
for adoration and comfort as bearing upon their redemp- 
tion through sovereign grace. 
_ We repeat, it is true that a one-sided intellectualism 
has done harm to a live Christianity; but to-day the 
pendulum has swung to the other extreme and has made 
us very poor. It is imagined that true piety will be 
advanced through the prevalent discounting of the value 
of doctrinal aspects of our faith. But the worst of the 
situation is, that our present general attitude towards the 
mysteries of the faith is one of scepticism; hardly anyone 
knows just what belongs to the facts on which Christian- 
ity is based; “what is truth?” is the general quandary. 
The present departure from the time-honored “form of 
sound words’’ will readily lead to worse departure: it 
is the natural development of the evil principles which 
are in operation. Doctrinal beliefs are terribly shaken 
and the people are bewildered. ; 
The Old Testament is doctrinal. It speaks of the unity 
and spirituality of God, and magnifies all His attributes. 
Creation and providence are much in evidence. Sin and 
redemption run as a scarlet thread throughout the entire 
Old Dispensation. The sacrificial system, which is. apt 
to be slurred over as formal and ceremonial, is never- 
theless grandly and essentially doctrinal, and edifying 
withal; and we may well believe that the pious Israelite 
164 


ARE THE STANDARDS MEDIEVAL? 


saw more in them than we at this date give them credit 
for. The doctrine of sin; the corruptness of the heart; 
the penalty of sin; the necessity of repentance : of humble 
trust in God’s mercy and pardon—all these and much 
more form the warp and woof of the Old Testament. 
And consider the numerous references to the great hope 
of the Coming One, His character and His work! 

Let it not be said that the Savior did not care for 
doctrine. He spoke of the character of God the Father, 
not only as loving but also as righteous and ready to 
enforce the penalty of sin in its time. In his conversation 
with Nicodemus he touched upon the very foundations 
of spiritual existence—regeneration—from which as an 
indispensable condition spiritual quality before God ob- 
tains, and from which such value imbues human actions 
as to render them acceptable to God. Jesus spoke of 
judgment and painted its terrors; moreover He often 
mentioned hell-fire which Paul (little in favor with 
Modernists) hardly mentions. The institution of bap- 
tism and the Lord’s Supper with their numerous doctrinal 
implications are of our Lord. He spoke of His own 
resurrection and of believers, and of His Second Advent. 

It is not necessary to give instances from the Epistles 
of Paul. But even in John, the Apostle of love, and who 
insists so generally and emphatically upon showing this 
love, you will find some of the severest doctrinal ex- 
pressions. ‘Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus 
rom tiem Christ. cae. Whosoever denieth the Son, the 
same hath not the Father” (1 John 2:22, 23). “For 
many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they 
that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh... . 
If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this 
teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him 
no greeting’ (2 John 10). For a Modernist to appeal 


165 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


to Paul’s great chapter on Love (1 Cor. XIII), as: 
“whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away” 
(8th verse); and: “‘the greatest of these is love” (13th 
verse) only shows what a poor conception he has of the 
signification of the “proportion of faith’. It is against 
common sense as well as against the elementary laws of 
exegesis to base important views upon isolated texts 
without regard to others. Love is above faith and hope, 
but this may not be interpreted to mean that God will 
subdue everything by love. On the contrary, He will 
eventually end the dispensation of grace by the exercise 
of overwhelming force. When the door of grace is about 
to be shut, there will be a “certain fearful expectation 
of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour 
the adversaries” (Heb. 10:27). It must not be forgotten 
that while “God is love’ it is also true: “For our God 
is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12: 29). 

Modernists need not make such an ado about their 
concern for correct deportment. The orthodox have 
always insisted upon this and have properly held that it 
must and can only proceed from a holy root. Consider 
Calvin’s rule in Geneva; the morality of the Puritans, 
notwithstanding any faults they had; the strict morality 
of the Calvinists of Holland, Scotland, France, etc., 
which elicited the admiration of their foes. Theologians 
are very one-sided when they extol the love of Jesus and 
point to his merciless scoring of formalism and hypocrisy 
which parades under the cloak of doctrinal correctness, 
as if the latter were of no moment. For that very reason 
correct doctrine stands so high in the Savior’s regard that 
his greater ire was kindled in seeing so holy and glorious 
a matter prostituted to so base a purpose. 

Folks of great reputation have said that the “spiritual” 
must be our primary concern, so that we must not stand 

166 


ARE THE STANDARDS MEDIEVAL? 


so strictly on the physical, the external. But pray, what 
is “spiritual”? Is there nothing “spiritual” about the 
birth of the Christ-child? Or about his death? Are 
these ‘“‘externals’”’ of no saving concern to us? Is there 
any discredit to God in having created a_ physical 
universe? And it is beneath our dignity to have been 
fashioned with a body, the most marvelous organism 
coming from God’s own hands, which the Son of God 
is not ashamed to assume and retain forever? Neither 
let us fear that the new heavens and the new earth should 
not be a fit abode for the risen and glorified saints, the 
scene of angelic manifestations; nor will the Son of God 
in His transcendent majesty be averse to be in their 
company and walk with them! 

Some people have worked themselves into a frenzy in 
shaming the orthodox for their efforts in correctly for- 
mulating the truths of Scriptures, and contending for 
them, and they say that the needs of the world are so 
ereat that it would be better to become practical and 
work hard to save the lost. Indeed, the latter must not 
be neglected, not by any means; but let brethren of 
strongly evangelistic cast of mind consider how much the 
integrity of Christianity needs to be maintained. When 
a fire is raging it would seem of prime importance first 
to proceed to turn on the water; but if some incendiary 
has been at work to tamper with the water-mains, it will 
be of even greater immediate importance to attend to 
the latter. If somewhere people are dying of thirst, the 
first duty of love would be to bring on water where first 
it could be found; but if it appear that the wells are 
poisoned it is a far greater duty to remedy the cause. 
It sounds magnificent to plead the cause of foreign 
missions and urge the dispatch of forces to China and 
other lands, but if recruits are sent who deny the verities 

167 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


of the gospel of saving grace, something else will be 
most imperatively necessary first of all. Dr. Augustus 
H. Strong has described this very situation most striking- 
ly and his declaration fills one with alarm: “The unbelief 
in our seminary teaching is like a blinding mist which is 
slowly settling down upon our churches, and is gradually 
abolishing, not only all definite views of Christian 
doctrine, but also all conviction of duty to ‘contend 
Catitestiy tor the faith” of our fathers );ie. We are 
ceasing to be evangelistic as well as evangelical, and if 
this downward progress continues, we shall in due time 
cease to exist.” 

The term “evangelical” used in the previous quotation 
gives occasion to remark on the assertion of moderate 
liberals that while they may not agree with all the details 
of the Standards, they are nevertheless ‘evangelical 
Christians”. Under this attractive term an intimation 
is given that their theology is an advance upon the strict 
and rigid doctrines set forth in the Standards, and they 
call their own view “evangelical Christianity”; and for 
that reason they claim they “have a constitutional right 
and a Christian duty within these limits to exercise liberty 
of thought and teaching”. Such is the belief of those 
Presbyterians who signed the “Affirmation designed to 
safeguard the unity and liberty of the Presbyterian 
Church in the United States of America”. 

We submit that for a Presbyterian or Reformed to 
talk like this, is to be guilty of a confusion of concepts. 
What is “evangelical Christianity” ? Many denominations 
lay claim to that designation, and rightly so. The Method- 
ists do; the Low Church Episcopalians do; and many 
more. But for the sake of accurate connotation we have 
to speak of Presbyterian and Reformed Christianity, and 
we do not need to apologize for it. That is our type. We 

168 


ARE THE STANDARDS MEDIEVAL? 


claim that our system of doctrines is Christianity as well 
as theirs. We likewise claim that ours is as evangelical 
as theirs is. But we need further definition to give a 
clear idea of our views, and so we specify that our type 
of Christianity is of the Reformed or Presbyterian 
variety. We are compelled to do this if we are to prevent 
confusion and equivocation. 

What now is the test by which we can distinguish 
ourselves as Presbyterians and Reformed from the other 
denominations? That test is the Confession of Faith. 
That is why these Confessions are called Standards of 
the Church: they are the standards of measurement, of 
purity, of identity. It is simply not to the point to talk 
about interpreting the Westminster Confession of Faith 
“evangelically’, or even Scripturally. We have to in- 
terpret that Confession at its face value if it is a 
standard at all. It was made for that purpose from 
Scripture, and as exactly reflecting Scripture. If you 
cannot agree with the statements of the Confession there 
is a way open for revision. But note well, that revision 
is not the question at issue in the ‘“Affirmation’’: that 
paper states that the Confession is “‘accepted’”’ and that 
“sincerely”. The system of doctrine in the Confession 
is expressed clearly enough. Now, a careful examination 
of the views of divers moderate liberals will reveal the 
fact that the latitude of interpretation which they desire 
is really dissent from the true language of the Confession, 
and when they call it a sincere acceptance of the Con- 
fession they do so by smuggling in another interpreta- 
tion which is excused, or sugar-coated, with the equivocal 
characterization of its being “evangelical”. On the face 
of it this “Affirmation” is loyal to the Presbyterian 
Church; but it is a chaotic mix-up to apply the official 
Presbyterian yard-stick to articles which measure short 

169 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


of the requirement, and then to assure the customer of 
its correctness on the strength of the virtue of broad- 
mindedness, at the same time intimating to the customer 
that he ought to feel ashamed of himself in straining at 
such peccadilloes. 

If the foundations do not lie secure the well-meant 
efforts of gospel preachers will face failure. The com- 
mand to repent cannot strike home unless the sense ot 
sin be strong; and this again depends upon a correct 
view of the holiness and righteousness of God. And, 
once more, in the light of this the character of Christ 
as a person and in his atoning work can best be seen, and 
so becomes effective for the appeal to believe in him. 
The fuller the view of him, in the correct position in 
which Scripture places him in every relation, the better 
for the success of the Gospel. This the Standards furnish 
us. They are so excellent, so evangelical, so applicable 
to modern conditions even, that an honest study of them 
will convince any one that they leave very little to be 
desired: they are perfectly true to the Word, and in the 
comprehensive way in which its riches of the Divine 
wisdom and grace is set forth, they deserve an enthu- 
Siastic acceptance. 

In his Encyclopedia Kuyper has given a most admir- 
able review of the history of theology as a science. In 
a brilliant paragraph he points out the insufficiency and 
the weakness of piety without proper relation to its 
doctrinal basis. He refers to the days of the Pietists 
when “theology had become too abstract; when it did 
indeed look for its foundation in the Scriptures, but it 
took this Holy Scripture too one-sidedly as a revelation 
of doctrine, and hence lost the spiritual reality out of 
sight, and forgot that Luther had indeed found in 
Scripture the rock on which he took his stand, but that 

170 


ARE THE STANDARDS MEDIEVAL? 


he also clung to this rock with both his hands. After all, 
the animating motive for theology must always proceed 
from the person who cultivates it...... Spener felt this; 
hence the reaction against orthodox theology which went 
out from him and his followers; but it was a reaction 
which, as things are apt to go, threw out the child with 
the bath. Pietism became in its basis antitheological. 
However much blessing this movement has brought unto 
the churches, it was powerless to bring theology out of 
its sterility unto new vigor. To be sure, it did much in 
furthering various studies which benefited the church, 
but it remained stationary as theology. And when the 
stream of church-life flowed away from beneath it, it 
eventually proved to be an unreliable floor of ice which 
cracked and collapsed as soon as Philosophy threw itself 
thereon with all its weight” (II. Sec. 69 fin). 

Good people who glory in the term ‘evangelical’ and 
who would exalt the ‘essential’ things of Scripture, that 
is, those which are concerned in salvation (this 1s 
Pietism), forget that evangelical beliefs must rest on 
secure grounds in order to withstand the attacks of 
rationalism and permanently to endure. Today Modern- 
ism is dissecting Scripture and estimating the relative 
value of its different parts, and it does this with a 
learning and a skill which carries almost everything 
before it. Now, through their methods the very things 
which the evangelicals set so much store by are being 
undermined and heavily discounted. These higher critics 
are not godless infidels, but they lay claim to true piety, 
and they say they heighten the value of the Word. And 
numbers have fallen before their arguments and some- 
how have lost their original ‘evangelical’ fervor. It 1s 
possible that our modern pietists can go on in the way 
they do, provided they ignore these attacks and new 

171 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF ‘AUTHORITY 


views, but when they begin honestly to face them (and 
they must come to it some time or other), they will find 
themselves in grave difficulty. They will then feel a 
crying need for some solid foundation to successfully 
weather the storm. The only thing which can do this is 
the Reformed principle of authority, and involved in this, 
is its entire ‘theology’—despised so much. They will 
feel its indispensability. Unless they take their stand 
there, their history will resolve itself into a constant 
retreat from one position to another, and the issue, a 
sort of catastrophe of faith. This is what Kuyper meant 
in his magnificent figure of speech: “And when the 
stream of church-life flowed away from beneath it, it 
eventually proved to be an unreliable floor of ice which 
cracked and collapsed as soon as Philosophy threw itself 
thereon with all its weight.’’ He means to express there- 
by that when spiritual life, which was the main support 
of its defective views of the authority of the Scripture, 
became weak; and when Philosophy, that is, the worldly 
wise reasoning on religious things, critical methods which 
are determined by human estimates, bear down upon 
these defective views of the grounds of our faith, then 
it will become evident what a flimsy foundation feeling 
and convention will prove to be. Then the argument of 
the Modernist will begin to avail, and the ‘evangelical’ 
note will gradually be lost as it will be looked upon as 
unhealthy and somewhat fanatic. Thus it went with 
Pietism; thus, in a way, ran the course of the spiritual 
history in the case of Cardinal Newman; and thus it has 
come to pass in ever so many of present day ministers 
who once gloried in the cross, but for whom the purchase 
price of their redemption has come to be viewed as a 
business transaction unworthy of Deity and crude in 
its ethics. 
172 


ARE THE STANDARDS MEDIEVAL ? 


In Section /1 of his Encyclopedia Kuyper brings the 
history of theology up to the date of his writing. AI- 
though the questions underlying the present Modernistic 
controversy were then already in evidence, they were but 
smoldering; but since his death they have broken out 
into blazing flame. Now, while Kuyper entitles his 
section “The Period of Resurrection” he also points out 
the fact that this new life exhibits a strong pietistic cast 
coupled with insistence upon the practical side of Chris- 
tianity. Generally speaking, present day theology shows 
much of compromise. Sharp lines of distinction are being 
avoided if not abhorred. There is indecision, equivoca- 
tion, pacifism, which have not clarified the issues nor 
furthered peace. Hence, the decided activity of Modern- 
ism proves that the sleeping lion of rationalism has 
taken advantage of the neglect to cage him for good, 
and he is now rampant, and himself mercilessly forces 
the attack. Modernism is by no means afraid of tem- 
porizing, nor does it smooth over its own sharp points, 
nor does is abhor dogmatism when its own dogmas are 
concerned. We have entered upon a distinct phase these 
last few years. The evangelicals mean well, but they do 
not realize that demoralization attends their course. They 
neglect painstaking study too much, which is always 
necessary and cannot be offset by devotion to things 
practical. There needs to be a willingness to see the real 
points at issue. These things will never be settled until 
they are settled right. 

Furthermore, the need and propriety of all this should 
be learned from our opponents. Study, devotion to 
principle and sharp distinction are cultivated and prized 
by the others. And therein lies their strength, and there- 
by they achieve success. Christian Century, for instance, 
does this to perfection on the Modernist side. There it 


LG} 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


is confessed that they as yet have but begun to develop 
a theology on their principles, and they evidently plan 
to go about it on scientific and well-conceived lines. 
We find the same disposition among the Roman Catho- 
lics. They are thoroughly assured of their position; they 
do not swerve from it in the least, and therein lies their 
strength. They openly boast of the sad plight of the 
evangelicals, and they believe (and rightly so) that the 
continuance of their present superficial, hesitating course 
will inure to the benefit of rationalism and catholicism. 
Hence the orthodox too should bestir themselves to come 
to a clear understanding of the situation; to gain a firm - 
grasp upon their principle of authority and like their 
forefathers to quit themselves like men in order to 
maintain and defend it. As the Union could not endure 
half slave, half free, neither can Protestantism thrive on 
a divided source of authority, one of which is false and 
the other neglected! As men of truth and sincerity we 
must become well advised of our position, there take a 
deliberate stand, and thence work out our theology. 
Definite positions are always favorable to progress. And 
we should not be afraid of theology provided we are 
well assured we have hold of the right one. We need 
never be afraid of the right theology as it must inevitably 
conserve piety and effective practise in the long run, 
while a faulty theology even with the warm glow of 
mysticism will eventually run to seed. Today the 
Protestant world stands before a tremendous alternative 
which can only be adequately met when we can give 
ourselves a serious, intelligent, well-advised account of 
the situation. 


CHAPTER X 
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 


This notable address of our Savior has drawn attention 
from many different directions. Friend and foe have 
alike admired it. One need not therefore wonder that 
its contents should have been appropriated in many ways. 
By many it is regarded as so comprehensive in scope, 
so admirable in spirit, and so wide of application that it 
can be used as a satisfactory program by all for religious 
purposes. | 

The Modernist in particular has no words of praise 
strong enough to express his high opinion of it, and to 
consider it to be the every essence of the teaching and 
spirit of Christianity. “The theology of Jesus, his thought 
about God, is the most winsome and wholesome that the 
world has known...... To him [Jesus] God is not a 
monarch, he is Father...... The sermon on the mount 
is pregnant with the concept of God as Father” (Chr. 
Century, Apr. 12, 1923). Still, in that “most winsome’” 
address Jesus spoke once and again of hell-fire (Matt. 
5:22, 29, 39); and he insisted on a man’s reconciling 
himself with his brother at his infinite peril (Matt. 5:25, 
26). And in the case of those who refuse to do this, 
as also in the case of those who say: “Lord, Lord, have 
RVELNOUS ov 5 ” Jesus will not act with loving indulgence, 
but as judge and monarch he will say: “I never knew 
you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity!” (Matt. 
eee) 

Says Christian Work in referring to a statement giving 

175 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


a summary of certain “common basic beliefs” that they 
“leave a good deal to be desired...... How different 
is such a summary of Christianity from the summary 
of the essentials for life given by Jesus Himself. How 
foreign most of it to the Sermon on the Mount. And 
where is the constitution of Christianity if it is not there? 
The absorbing interest of Jesus Christ was in the King- 
dom of God on earth. Has not the time come when we 
can define Christianity in the words which most authen- 
tically come from Jesus Christ Himself?” (Sept. 1, 
1923). No wonder that some have complained that our 
Creeds contain little of what is found in the Sermon on 
the Mount. It may be noted, though, that the first article 
of the Apostles’ Creed is all there: “I believe in God the 
Father, maker of heaven and earth.’’ But this is about 
the extent of it. However, it is very strange that a 
demand should be made to construct a Creed on lines of 
conduct and emotions. The Constitution of the United 
States of America serves a basic purpose to indicate the 
nature of our government, to give warrant and direction 
for the discharge of all kinds of civic functions, and thus 
it will be easy for our citizens to conduct themselves 
properly in conformity to the genius of our free institu- 
tions. Similarly, the constitution of a Church does not 
consist in moral maxims, or in some pious aspirations. 
It is astonishing to note the superficiality of an eminent 
man who said: “My idea of fundamentalism and liberal- 
ism in an ethical or religious creed will be found in the 
eighth verse of the sixth chapter of the book of Micah. 
I do not believe that the Lord requires of us on this 
planet any more theology than that.” How poor we 
make ourselves thus! What a premium we thus set on 
ignorance! What a flat contradiction to ever so many 
passages of Scripture which bid us “go on towards 
176 


THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 


perfection”; to “comprehend with all the saints what is 
the breadth, and length, and depth, and height’’; to trace 
out the “unsearchable riches of Christ’; etc. It is of 
prime importance first to look after the identity of the 
Christian religion, to understand its foundations and 
principles. If these lie secure and sound in our appre- 
hension the practice and enjoyment will have a readier 
and safer course. Without a proper foundation (so this 
very Sermon on the Mount teaches in its conclusion), 
we “shall be likened unto a foolish man who built his 
house upon the sand. And the rain descended; and the 
flood came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house. 
And it fell; and great was the fall of it!’ 

Still another opinion is illuminating. “The unique 
moral attitude of Jesus, with its basis of faith in the 
salvability of all men, will influence Christian ethics much 
more profoundly than it did in orthodox thought. The 
sermon on the mount was more or less irrelevant to the 
older orthodoxy with its scheme of salvation, and was 
betrayed by its conception of biblical authority to give 
undue emphasis to Hebraistic legalism. Liberal theology 
has liberated Christian ethics in a day in which the world 
is sadly in need of the unique idealism of the sermon on 
the mount” (Chr. Century, Feb. 15, 1923). 

- Certainly: we all agree that this discourse of our Lord 
was a wonderful address. It indeed breathes forth an 
“nique idealism’. However, we submit that the “older 
orthodoxy with its scheme of salvation” has very well 
understood it, and, as we shall undertake to show more 
at length below, has construed it admirably. The Sermon 
on the Mount exalts the righteousness of God and holds 
it up for human imitation. It is silent on the power 
which makes possible such exalted conduct. Our Lord 
had his reasons for that, and we must be careful about 


177 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


constructing doctrines out of the silences of Scripture. 
But the Modernist finds that power of living in con- 
formity to Christ’s sublime directions, ready at hand: 
the very beauty and attractiveness of the words are 
capable of furnishing all the incentive and urge necessary 
to its imitation. The Modernist insist upon strict obe- 
dience. “Do this and thou shalt live!’ And in so speaking 
we submit that the Modernist is more guilty of trusting 
to a sort of “Hebraistic legalism” than he twits the 
orthodox with who lives and works through grace. 
Whence we dare affirm, that, on the orthodox showing, 
the Sermon on the Mount has effectively influenced con- 
duct better than the Modernist can hope for. It is a 
tremendous mistake on the part of the Modernist in 
insisting so much upon fruits to be shown, he neglects 
taking into account that the stock of the tree and its. 
roots must be of a congruous nature. He too much 
disregards the necessity of saving faith, the principle of 
spiritual life, and the fact that this derives its power 
from the Savior by virtue of his crucifixion. In this 
way the Modernist stands dangerously near those who 
are the outspoken enemies of the Cross. ‘The oriental 
Brahmin with his western education says just what the 
Boston Brahmin says: ‘Let us have the Sermon on the 
Mount or praise of the character of Christ, but not the 
kasam, rubbish of the Cross’.’’ Yes, we know that the 
Modernist does not mean to dispense with the Cross 
altogether ; nevertheless he interprets it in a way which 
pretty well suits all kinds of cultured self-righteousness 
and self-sufficiency. Note their view of it: “The differ- 
ence in the soteriology of the old and new theology is 
no less important. Catholicism conceived redemption as 
a purely historical achievement which the individual could 
appropriate by conformity through an external trans- 
178 


THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 


action. The reformation had the same conception of the 
historical achievement but insisted that its blessings could 
be appropriated only in a spiritual experience. It believed 
the moral life to be an inevitable fruit but not an integral 
part of the process of salvation. If the new reformation 
is wise, it would continue to insist, as it generally does, 
that moral achievement must have its dynamic in spiritual 
experience and it will not deny the profound redemptive 
power of the historical fact of the cross; yet its particular 
emphasis is that the moral life is a part of the very 
process of salvation. This change of emphasis is obvious 
and important and the defenders of orthodoxy have a 
right to call attention to it” (Chr. Century, Feb. 15, 
1923). The very radical mistake here, a characteristic 
one, and which according to the honest confession of 
The Christian Century makes Modernism almost a “new 
religion’, is that the fruit 1s simultaneous with the root, 
the cause with the effect. The orthodox soteriology 
speaks of an experience which is due to the work of the 
Holy Spirit, and not to any works of righteousness which 
we have done. The Modernist finds the root sound 
enough to bring forth the right fruit and man needs but 
so to decide. “Salvation is seeing that the universe 1s 
good, and becoming a part of that goodness’ (Clutton- 
Brock). After all, character is the Divine requirement 
apart from any doctrinal construction of the indispensable 
merits of the Cross, so they think. 

This construction of soteriology is called the ‘“‘new 
reformation” by the Liberals. We do not hesitate to 
call it a fresh reversion to an old error. It is actually the 
error of the very Pharisees whom the Liberal denounces. 
It is the doing of works as the ground for Divine favor: ' 
it is ‘“Hebraistic legalism”. And great are the efforts 
to bring forth such fruits. Indeed, against the claims of 

‘179 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


orthodoxy much needs to be done to seem justified in 
the new conception of Christianity. And indeed the fruit 
often looks very good to the eye: even saints are often 
deceived thereby. Nevertheless the spiritual perception 
which is sensitized through divine grace, sees otherwise : 
and for them its taste has not the heavenly sweetness of 
such fruit as is matured under the rays of the Sun of 
Righteousness unhindered by the shades of worldliness 
and self-righteousness. There is absolute necessity for 
the Divine life to be implanted, whence fruits pleasing 
to God and worthy of repentance can be brought forth. 
So the Master Himself taught Nicodemus. So emphatic 
was He about. it, that he stated that truth twice and in 
close succession and each time enforced it with a double 
solemn “Verily!” 

What we therefore affirm is according to the teaching 
of Jesus Himself. The Modernist relies for his theology 
on the very words of the Savior. Of what nature this 
dependance upon his words is, and in how far they accept 
even these will appear from a typical quotation. “We 
are brought closest to his teaching in the synoptist Gospels 
[how convenient thus to get rid of the passages of John, 
such as the requirement of regeneration in the discourse 
with Nicodemus, and the requirement to “search the 
Scriptures which testify” of Christ] and especially in 
those portions that record his sermons, parables and his 
conversations. In these he shows a fond familiarity with 
portions of the Old Testament. Evidently he has win- 
nowed for his own purposes and. had kept what was 
usable in his proposed new kingdom. The sermon on the — 
mount is less a sermon than the platform of the Master’s 
kingdom. Read in this light, it is as significant for 
what is not in it as for what is there. In it there is not 
a word about circumcision or the sabbath, though the 

180 


\ 


THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 


Jews placed tremendous emphasis on both. There is not 
a word about the elaborate sacrificial system, or the 
day of atonement, or the order of priests, or the laws 
of taboo, or ceremonial washings or merely ritual sins 
and the various sacrificial purifications for them. What 
a mass of tribalism and ritualism and legalism and 
sacerdotalism falls away the moment the Savior steps out 
onto the really catholic platform of his sermons and 
prayers and parables! He even takes special pains to 
repeal certain laws under the formula, ‘Ye have heard 
that it was said by them of old time...... but I say untc 
you’ thus putting his own authority over against that 
of the ancient tribal and ethnic legislators. And all the 
while that he is doing this he is affirming that he came 
‘not to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfill 
them’” (W. J. Lhamon). 

How poor the Modernist makes us in our spiritual 
treasures! For the essence of our religion—for the part 
upon which we can depend—is to be sought in the 
Gospels. No; not in all of them. Only in the Synoptics, 
so that the rich spiritual Gospel of John falls out. But 
even these Synoptic Gospels are colored by the views 
of the writers. In them we are to look for the very 
words of the Lord Jesus: the sermons, the parables, the 
prayers . But in how far are even these authentic? Who 
is to decide that? What a tremendous strain it puts upon 
human discernment at this late date to separate the true 
from the false! But why should the Modernist complain 
that so little is said about the sabbath, the day of atone- 
ment, etc., in the Sermon on the Mount? He hates all 
these things as is evident from his impatient way of 
holding them up to contempt and connecting them with 
unworthy ideas not gotten from the sacred page. Hear 
him droning it out: “elaborate sacrificial system, the. day 

181 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


of atonement, the order of priests, the laws of taboo, 
the ceremonial washings or merely ritual sins and the 
various sacrificial purifications...... mass of tribalism 
and ritualism and legalism and sacerdotalism”. How this 
all is grossly misunderstood and misdirected! But note 
how the Epistle of Hebrews glorifies these very things! 
It 1s well that so little of this is found in the Sermon 
on the Mount, for if it had been there, how summarily 
the unerring judgment of the Modernist would have 
excised it as relics of “‘tribalism and ethnicalism’’: as he 
has worked himself up into a hatred of these things of 
course they could not be authentic. 

We may as well confess that indignation has taken 
hold of us as we read such travesty of holy things. We 
choose to believe that our Lord did very little “winnowing 
of the Old Testament for his future use”. He ever speaks 
with the greatest respect of all the Old Testament. He 
endorsed all of it in many places. “Ye search the 
Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; 
and they are they which testify of Me!’ We choose to 
regard not only his words but also his deeds, his miracles 
as authentic. And the Modernist makes a palpable exege- 
tical mistake when he thinks that our Lord in the Sermon 
on the Mount repealed part of the Mosaic legislation 
when he said: “Ye have heard that it was said by them 
Gigold shine eu, ”; this did not refer to the repeal of 
any part of the Scriptures but to the perverted use made 
of them by the Scribes and Pharisees.* He clinched this 


* In the passages which Jesus quoted (Matt. 5:21, 27, 33, 38 


and 43) he taught that the Scribes were giving them an inter- 
pretation not warranted by the Scriptures, and that they had 
even added unto the words of the Law. (vs. 43). If we are not 
to bring the Savior into contradiction with other expressions 
He uttered and with divers passages in the New Testament, we 
may not so interpret His words as though they were designed 
to supersede the Law. On the contrary, he is at pains to show 


182 


THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 


when he said in this very Sermon on the Mount: “Think 
not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. 
I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say 
unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle 
shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled’ 
eMattoca st /ae18))3 

But let us pass on to a constructive view of the Sermon 
on the Mount. To this end we will consider these two 
questions : What is its relation to the Dispensations? and, 
What is its character and use? 

I. On considering what the relation of the Sermon 
on the Mount is to the Dispensations, it is first of all 
to be noted in what time and under what circumstances 
it was uttered. | 

We speak customarily of the Dispensations of the Law 
and the Gospel. The former is so held to be the period 
in which God treats with Israel under types and shadows; 
the latter dates from the time when these were fulfilled 
in the death and resurrection of Christ. The period of 
the Law is so called because in it God revealed His holy 
will to Israel and made regulations for its observance. 
He also spoke of the bitter consequences of its trans- 
gression. The period of the Gospel is conventionally the 
more gracious and indulgent Dispensation in which God’s 
love is seen to best advantage. 


how the full import of the Law extends even farther than the 
bare wording would seem to indicate. Neither is the 33rd verse 
an absolute prohibition against the taking of an oath, but rather, 
that true piety should not find it necessary to take an oath. It 
will have to submit to the requirements of the legally constituted 
civil authorities if they should require it. And even the 38th 
verse refers (in the Pentateuch) to the exercise of civil functions 
in giving restitution for damages, but our Lord condemned the 
use of that passage for furthering private revenge and the like. 
An ordinary use of common sense and the plain rules of exegesis 
will clear up most satisfactorily ever so many passages which 
Modernists use in a plausible and artificial way. 


183 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


However, much misapprehension is current concerning 
the nature of the terms applied to these Dispensations. 
Ihe common idea is that the Law specifically reigned 
before Christ, and that grace specifically reigned after 
Christ; that men were to attempt their salvation by the 
deeds of the Law in the Law-period, and that they were 
to be saved through grace in the Gospel-period; that the 
Law-period was a severe one, and the Gospel-period the 
mild one; that God was harsh under the former Dis- 
pensation, and tolerant under the latter. 

Now we may reasonably expect that unity and con- 
sistency must obtain in both Dispensations so as to 
harmonize with the immutability of God, as this must 
be reflected in His dealings with sinners under both 
Dispensations. The fact is, that all the currently held 
characteristics of either Dispensation apply under the 
same circumstances and aspects equally and completely 
to both. That is to say: You will find in the Old Testa- 
ment as tender and merciful expression of the love of 
God as in the New (see Ex. 34:6, 7; Psa. 103 Os 
sa 40215 60:133 Jervsl<3 Jonah 4-2a ie etc.). On 
the other hand, you will find in the New Testament as 
severe denunciation of sin and flaming of wrath as in 
the Old (see Matt. 16:6, 7; 23:13-16; Rom. 1:1-18; 
Peon ue Gor nosed «heb wlen 29 etc.). The Law was 
indeed given by Moses as the expressed will of God, but 
its demands have not ceased by any means under the 
New Testament. In fact, the New Testament brings 
out with added clearness and insistence the high demands 
of the Law with its eternal value and immutable claims. 
Neither was the Law given in the Old Dispensation as 
a means to secure salvation, as little as it is under the 
New. Under the Old Dispensation it was a tutor to lead 
elsewhere than to mere Law-observance for securing 

184 


THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 


pardon and peace. Such a result was then to be found, 
as at present, in the grace of God in the sacrifice provided 
for sin. In the Old Dispensation this was the oft repeated 
sacrifice of animals which God accepted in lieu of the 
coming sacrifice of nobler value. The fact that blood was 
always being shed must have struck every observant 
Israelite with the thought that something else, other than 
the deeds of the Law, was needed for his acceptance 
before God. The contrite and believing Israelite, on 
laying his hand on the sacrificial Jamb, was, unbeknown 
to himself, really laying his hand upon the head of Christ, 
the Lamb in God’s regard slain from the foundation of 
the world, and so available for all time. Such an Israelite 
was justified by faith apart from the merits of the Law, 
even in that time, as Psalms 32:2 abundantly proves: 
“Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not 
iniquity’. And there are a number of passages in the 
Old Testament which point out the futility of finding 
salvation through the keeping of the Commandments. 
Therefore, in short, the great difference between the 
Old and the New Testaments lies not in the presence of 
the Law and an expectation of salvation to be obtained 
through its observance, but the great difference lies in 
this, that the Old Testament presents the grace of God 
under types and shadows, and in the New Testament 
the full light of the reality breaks forth. 

Furthermore, what is meant by the term ‘legal’ and 
‘evangelical’? May we say that there is a ’Law-period’ 
and a ‘Gospel-period’? Their real character needs to be 
clearly understood if our conception of things do not 
lead us astray. We must be careful in employing such 
terms. Indeed, there was ‘gospel’ in the Old Dispensation. 
It is significant to read: ‘““And the Scripture, foreseeing 
that God would justify the heathen through faith, 

185 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In 
thee shall all the nations be blessed” (Gal. 3:8). “For 
unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto them”’ 
(Heb. 4:2). Hence, according to these texts, the Gospel- 
period goes-back at least to Abraham. This gives every 
reason to push it back still farther, for in fact it begins 
immediately after the Fall, when God said: “And I will 
put enmity between thee and the woman, and between 
thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou 
shalt bruise his heel’? (Gen. 3:15). And so it must be 
well understood that the strictly legal period, when man 
earned salvation by works, obtained in the days of 
Adam’s probation, and it ended with the Fall. With the 
Fall grace began, and since that very time man by it 
alone could be saved, and not by works. Nor was he 
supposed to attempt it. Of course, the measure of the 
exhibitions of grace differed in the two periods divided 
by the Cross; but the principle of division did not lie in 
the measure of grace but in its clearness. Hence, the long 
period of grace from the Fall till the present time must 
be designated and divided as follows: 1. The period 
of the types and shadows of grace; and 2. The period 
of the full realization of grace in fulfilled type and 
ceremony. 

It will be asked, What then is the significance of the 
giving of the Law? In answer please consider that the 
Law of Sinai did not initiate transgression of God’s 
holy will, but it was given to render transgression more 
pointed and definite (Rom. 5:20). In that sense “sin 
abounded’, and in that sense also, as making escape 
possible even then, “grace abounded’ also, while as a 
matter of fact the mercy and grace of God was as great 
under the Law as under the Gospel. Thus Titus 3:4 
must be read with care: not that the “kindness and love 

186 


THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 


of God our Savior’ began, but they “appeared”. The 
words of John 1:17, “For the Law was given by Moses, 
but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ’? must be 
explained thus: We have had the Dispensation of the - 
shadows of grace, in which Moses and the Law and its 
ceremonies were prominent, but now, the fulness of grace, 
seen in its true light, has come to pass. 

Incidentally it is to be noted that this view of the 
matter is of great importance in our construction of the 
doctrine of Infant Baptism. We believe that God made 
with Abraham a Covenant of Grace. While its ceremonial 
detail lay largely in type and shadow, its fundamental 
aspects were necessarily of grace. Thus, the bloodiness 
of the rite, the eight days, and the national reference 
were of the shadow, but the covenant engagement with 
the inclusion of the children pointing to spiritual benefits 
were God’s fundamental method of grace which could 
not be broken by the passing of the Dispensations, but 
they acquired that clearness which fully brought out the 
depth of the Divine love pervading His good pleasure, 
from which the Reformed start out to construe the 
doctrines of Scripture. 

II. We are now ready to consider what the character 
and use is of the Sermon on the Mount. 

It must be carefully noted that the Sermon on the 
Mount was delivered in the day of the shadows. “God 
BeMtelortnsrlisSe OO... made under the Law” (Gal. 
4:4); that is,-in the Dispensation of the shadows. As 
thus subject to the Law, it became Him to “fulfill all 
righteousness’. Christ did not perform its ceremonies 
from a legalistic motive, but to share on our behalf the 
grace which was so typified. When then Christ “opened 
His mouth and taught’, He could not possibly utter 
the language of the complete fulfillment, but He spoke 

187 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


from the standpoint of the prefigurations. And what 
He said was not said out of the narrowly ceremonial 
aspects of things, but from the standpoint of true religion 
as manifested in the regenerate disposition and reflected 
from the holy will of God. His discourse therefore 
respected God’s holy will, expressly and tacitly conveyed 
in the Law according to which man ought to live. Hence, 
in that discourse the Law, as expressing God’s holy will, 
received advanced interpretation. This will appear from 
an examination of the contents of the Sermon on the 
Mount. 

Jesus begins His immortal address by naming various 
characteristics of true religion (the Beatitudes). Then 
He adverts to the Law as the rule of life. His very 
first utterance in regard to this is in full accord with 
what we have stated above: “Think not that I am come 
to destroy the law and the prophets; I am not come to 
destroy but to fulfill.” That is, the Law is immutable, 
but Christ brings it out more clearly in His instructions 
and deeds, in His life and in His death. He proceeds 
to clear it of rabbinical sophisms; not to make it 
“evangelical”, as some imagine. For that word has a 
soteriological bearing. But Christ interprets the Law in 
its real meaning and spirit. His is therefore a high 
interpretation. Christ continues by condemning external- 
ism in religion (Matt. 6:1-18). Then He portrays true 
consecration and trust (6:19-34). The charitable dis- 
position (7:1-6); encouragement to prayer (7 :7-11); 
and in the twelfth verse is given the great summary of 
true charity. Next we have an admonition to choose 
the right portion (13, 14); a warning against false 
teachers (15-20) ; and against false professions (21-23). 
And as a conclusion, the diverse character and different 
end of the doers and non-doers (24-27). 

188 


THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 


In short, the design of the Sermon on the Mount is 
to set- forth true righteousness. That must be hungered 
after; for it, we must be willing to endure persecution; 
it must exceed that of the Pharisees; it must be first 
sought with the Kingdom, and “all these things shall 
be added” unto us. The standard of attainment must be 
God Himself: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your 
Father who is in Heaven is perfect.’’ That is, there must 
be “full development, growth into maturity of Godliness’”’ 
(Scofield on Matt. 5:48). 

Further, what use are we to make of the Sermon on 
the Mount? 

As absolutely necessary to salvation, regeneration by 
the Holy Spirit has obtained since the Fall and hence 
also in the Law-period. It was in the very days of the 
shadows that Jesus spoke so positively about it to 
Nicodemus. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary for 
true religion. And it must be noted that when Jesus 
spoke of true religion in the Sermon on the Mount He 
simply left in abeyance how it was gotten and whence 
the power is derived through which man is able to realize 
it in practice. Since Jesus presupposes the presence of the 
new life in the hearts of his hearers, He speaks from 
that standpoint and for that reason speaks of God as 
Father which He can be only of His own dear children. 

This needs to be considered since there is nowadays 
a widespread glorification of the Sermon on the Mount 
as the basis of true religion, so represented that all men, 
the heathen included, can join in it, provided they do 
but make up their minds to that purpose. This view 
disregards regeneration in its true meaning. This is the 
modern spirit which conjures with the Fatherhood of 
God and the Brotherhood of man. This is, however, not 
based on the Scriptures, and is not true Christianity. 

189 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


This kind of religion is Ethicalism—the religion of the 
natural man, based on his deeds, which can indeed get 
so far as to recognize beautiful ideals but is unable to 
inaugurate the power for their attainment. This kind 
does not recognize the depravity of human nature; it 
holds to man’s inherent ability to do what God may 
reasonably ask him to do. Sin is not so serious but what 
doing the common duties and amenities of life will 
insure eternal life. The blood of Christ is not regarded 
as necessary for the atonement of sin. There men are 
justifying themselves by their works and do so on the 
basis of the Sermon on the Mount. Because that dis- 
course holds ethics high, they make it the basis of saving 
faith through their injection of the assumption of man’s 
natural ability to perform saving good. 

Reconciliation with God through sacrifices as the 
indispensable basis of true religion is indeed recognized 
in the Sermon on the Mount. And the method of this 
reconciliation is at least broadly hinted at: the altar is 
twice mentioned: in Matt. 5:24, 25. Though the Sermon 
on the Mount was delivered in the days of the shadows, 
and the fulness of salvation through the atoning blood 
of Christ was not yet come, nevertheless “all the blood 
of beasts, on Jewish altars slain’ was not regarded merely 
as a crude device consonant with barbarous by-gone ages. 
This is a great mistake of the Modernists, whence we 
must understand the reference to the altar in the light 
of the Divine intention and method of instruction. The 
altar was to bring reconciliation through the blood shed 
there; that also implied the right disposition of heart. 
The entire discourse presupposes the presence of the 
regenerate heart, and by the fruits this will become 
evident (Matt. 7:20). This is decisive from Matt. 5:23, 
24; for, if any bring a gift to the altar and believes he 

190 


THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 


has the new nature but is at odds with his brother, he 
is to prove this by seeking reconciliation with his brother. 
Otherwise all his praying of ‘Lord, Lord” will avail him 
nothing, and will but show he is not born of God. 

The Sermon on the Mount is the highest interpretation 
of the Law. The natural man never kept it, nor can 
he truly keep it under the most favorable help of culture 
and civilization. All mankind comes short of the glory 
of God, and consequently stands condemned before the 
undiminished demands of Divine righteousness and holi- 
ness. Hence the Sermon on the Mount cannot possibly 
be the basis of universal religion with the idea that 
merely as such it will become a means of adjudging 
worthy of eternal life. It can do no more than the Law 
of Moses did, or than any scheme invented by man to 
gain favor with God. 

This becomes the more evident when we carefully 
distinguish between the two uses of the Law; generally 
recognized in Christian theology; namely, first, as a 
means of condemnation and so as a tutor to lead to 
Christ; and secondly, as a rule of life whereby man must 
order his conduct before God and man. Its latter use is 
possible of partial accomplishment only in the case of 
the regenerate, for “even the holiest in this life, have 
only a small beginning of this obedience; yet so, that 
with earnest purpose they begin to live, not only according 
to some, but according to all the commandments of God’’ 
(Heid. Cat. Qu. 114). 

Finally. The Sermon on the Mount is the Law of the 
Kingdom. We will not enter into the vexed question 
of determining what the phrase means; as to just what 
is meant by its presence or coming, its constitution and 
circumstances. It is enough to know that since the Law 
of God is eternal and never abrogated, it applies to-day. 

‘IQI 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


In the Sermon on the Mount the references are constantly. 
to present sinful surroundings, temptations, imperfec- 
tions, externalism, anxiety, materialism, and our Lord 
offers us very pertinent and striking directions for their 
composure. 

It must be evident that so many men of ability have 
entirely forgotten themselves in proposing to make the 
Sermon on the Mount the basis of true Christianity. 
They do it so confidently! But that is the penalty of 
having a theology based on a false principle. All must 
go wrong; whence any shining appearance will be grasped 
at with feverish delight. And the self-contradiction of it! 
The Modernist who prides himself with such supreme 
satisfaction that he has made an advance upon the 
theology of the Reformation, has actually gone back to 
pre-Christian times, to a religion of ‘‘Hebraistic legal- 
ism’. And he has followed in the track of the Pharisees 
in this way that they have not seen the spiritual signifi- 
cance of all the Law and its ceremonials as these point 
to the only Name given under heaven among men 
whereby we must be saved—yes, saved through the 
merits of the Cross! Saved “not by works of righteous- 
ness which we have done, but according to His mercy, 
by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the 
Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). Aye, worse than that, as the 
Modernist has stripped even this deeper significance of 
the Jewish Dispensation of its real objective, he is 
holding a sort of religion which is pagan and gives forth 
light only, as, like the moon, the light of Christianity 
shines upon it. ’ 


192 


CHAPTER XI 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 


It is a very strange thing that this question should have 
been asked so often. It certainly seems inexcusable to 
ask this question in these last decades, but in them it 
has been asked with even greater insistence. It would 
seem that some great ignorance, or some great wilfulness 
is at the bottom of such an anomalous situation. Some- 
how people have been unable or unwilling to see eye 
to eye. 

One very important point that enters into the difficulty 
is Whether Christianity is a doctrine or a life, a set of 
dogmas or a fine spirit. 

The fact must be honestly faced that, put this way, 
we are placed before a false antithesis. Nevertheless the 
changes are rung upon it without end, even by the 
wisest of men. The matter must be faced with sterling 
integrity, with a consuming wish to learn the truth and 
abide by it. 

The undeniable fact is simply that Christianity is both 
a doctrine and a life. If it is to be conceived of as 
doctrine only, making it mere intellectualism, cold and 
lifeless in its operation, then we orthodox insist as 
strongly as the liberal that this is the corpse of Christi- 
anity and may almost as well be buried. But on the other 
hand, let the liberal know that such a thing as a life 
without doctrine is also impossible: we can do very little 
with abstractions; we certainly cannot live on them. The 
liberals themselves base whatever form of Christianity 


193 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


they have upon doctrine. If they did not, they could not 
be distinguished from the pious Buddhist, or from some 
sweet-tempered infidel. What are the doctrines of the 
Liberals? They believe in the historic Jesus; his life and 
influence ; they believe in a God of love; in the goodness 
of the heart ; in certain values which reside in the histories 
of the Bible and its teachings. This is enough to show 
that in this respect the ofthodox and the Liberal stand 
on one common platform of needing some basis for 
their religion. 

Said a very orthodox man: “Christianity and dogmas 
are not identical. Christianity is wider than dogmas. 
But dogmas, we maintain, are a vital part of our religion. 
Granted that Christianity is more than dogmas, but if 
we have a good and grand view of the doctrines of 
Christianity we have a great deal and the rest will follow” 
(Steffens). Our Liberals should be more considerate 
than to give the impression as if all orthodox views are 
a mere “mouthing of creeds’, etc. There may be some 
truth to this formal aspect of the matter in a few cases; 
but this never can be general. Besides, true candor 
requires that the formal aspect of such a matter should 
not be unduly pressed, and that, rather, the far more 
important material side of the matter receive all attention : 
for upon this the real issue hinges. And to begin with, 
there should be an end to confusing the issues by means 
of arguing to a false antithesis. This will get us nowhere. 

What then is Christianity? Broadly speaking the 
orthodox say, for instance: “Christianity is a particular 
religion, specifically different all other religions; that it 
received its specific content once and for all from Christ 
and His Apostles; and that this content has received 
authoritative expression in the New Testament. Still 
further, they hold that the great historical facts recorded 


194 


WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY ? 


in the New Testament, such as the death and resurrection 
of Christ, and the interpretation of these facts which 
it contains, are equally constituent elements of this 
content. Apart from these facts there would be no 
Christianity; but give the facts an interpretation other 
than that of the New Testament, and they do not give 
us Christianity” (The Presbyterian). 

What is Christianity from the standpoint of the 
Modernist? “Modernism is a non-theological scientific 
application of the teaching and life of Jesus to twentieth 
century affairs’ (Shailer Methews). New Testament 
historical references and ideas play their part in this, 
but they are allowed a wide latitude of interpretation 
as to their origin, their intrinsic value or bearing upon 
salvation. The cultured and scientific mind of man sits 
in judgment upon the truth and the value of these things. 

It will be seen that the inquiry as to what Christianity 
is narrows down to a question of interpretation of the 
New Testament literature. We must choose between two 
methods of interpretation which flow forth from two 
radically different principles, as we have set forth in 
detail in our Third Chapter. We shall not repeat this, 
except to say that if the Liberal principle is consistently 
carried out it will largely destroy the facts, the bases of 
Christianity, and with it must go its spirit which inheres 
in the facts as they are presented in the New Testament. 
And we must remind our readers once more that a fine 
spirit may long survive among people who have become 
Modernists or even worse, despite their disaffection with 
regard to the origin of these: the reflex influence of the 
best kind of Christianity will long blossom forth after 
its roots have been cut off. 

To the question: What is Christianity? we would reply 
that it is based upon a revelation from heaven which is 

105 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


recorded in the Holy Scriptures through the agency of 
the Holy Spirit; these Scriptures furnish the complex 
of doctrine which bear upon the redemption of mankind 
from sin; they are applied by the Holy Spirit of grace 
and power to the believing heart, which receives spiritual 
life and is thus enabled to bring forth the fruits which 
are well-pleasing to a holy God. We acknowledge that 
the apprehension of these doctrines may vary in extent, 
and that the power of the Holy Spirit in transforming 
lives may differ in intensity; but both these elements 
must in some degree be in evidence to render one a 
Christian, and to show forth what Christianity is. 

In these particulars the Modernist will not agree, 
according to the degree in which the rationalistic poison 
has infected him. ‘Nothing is more characteristic at 
least of the thorough-going Modernist than his hostility 
to supernaturalism and his friendliness to naturalness of 
thought and sentiment...... As Bavinck puts it: ‘The 
religious supernaturalistic world-view has universally 
prevailed among all peoples and ages down to the present 
day, and only in the last hundred and fifty years has given 
way in some circles to the empirico-scientific’........ 
To us that which is most distinctive of the religious 
Modernist is his rejection of the principle of external 
authority — it wants to trust in spirit’ (The Pres- 
byterian). 

What is the reason that the outspoken Liberal balks 
at these things? The answer is given in I Cor. 1 :23-29, 
“But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stum- 
blingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness ; but unto them 
that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power 
of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness 
of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is 
stronger than mea. For behold your calling, brethren, 

196 


WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY ? 


that not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not 
many noble, are called; but God chose the foolish things 
of the world, that he might put to shame them that are 
wise; and God chose the weak things of the world, that 
he might put to shame the things that are strong; and 
the base things of the world, and the things that are 
despised, did God choose, yea, and the things that are 
not, that he might bring to nought the things that are; 
that no flesh should glory before God.” There is some- 
thing about the rationalistic spirit that will not bow to 
Divine authority; it loves human judgment; it places 
faith in its own efforts, in works of righteousness that 
it has done. It glories in its own wisdom. In The 
Netherlands the Liberals used to call themselves without 
hesitation, the “thinking part of humanity’. And one of 
our chief Liberal organs said: ‘Liberal Christianity 
makes no headway among coarse, uneducated and un- 
thinking people. Its necessary condition of success is a 
public professing something beyond the average amount 
of culture, intellectually and morally.” 

Is it not overweening presumption to make such state- 
ments? Must we actually believe that such very learned, 
cultured logical minds, as Patton, Warfield, Thornwell, 
Dabney in America, and Kuyper and Bavinck in The 
Netherlands, not to mention numerous others, are so 
blind as to be held down by views which should be seen 
as such if so evidently inferior? May we dare say, 
without wishing in the least to be presumptuous, that the 
evidence from such men placed at the disposal of the 
reader in this book, should at least give respect for their 
views and should lead to a candid examination of the 
orthodox position, whether this position, the anchor-sheet 
of the saints in all ages, is not the very rock of 
confidence, in as much as power has gone forth from 

197 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


these very circles, whilst Rationalism has had very little 
to show for? 

In support of their claims Liberals have pointed con- 
fidently to the “Christianity of Jesus’. A typical view 
of it appears in an editorial in Christian Work of Nov. 3, 
1923. ““The essence of the difficulty between Fundamen- 
talists and Modernists is that their modes of thought run 
in different planes, their ideas in some cases are incom- 
mensurate.. 750." The older thought generation holds the 
form to be the essential thing; the newer generation is 
concerned with the force within, however the form may 
vary.” Then Dr. Patton’s definition of Christianity is 
quoted: “Christianity is a supernatural revelation of a 
way of salvation from sin through the incarnation and 
blood-shedding of the Son of God.” Said editorial then 
asks: “Does that definition comply with Jesus’ own 
definition of religion? Again and again we must bid 
those who want to know what Christianity is, to turn 
back to the Gospels, above all to those Gospels which 
give us the picture of Jesus most directly [they are 
anxious to throw out the Gospel according to John], 
with the least transmission of His personality through 
other minds.” Now, reader, do you not see how this 
whole Modernist scheme is based upon private judgment, 
and that it could not stand if the whole of Scripture 
were received? They do not proceed from the Scripture 
principle of authority, but from the Rationalistic. Hence, 
to gain their point, they rest their case upon the Gospels 
only; nay, upon some of the Gospels; and even then they 
receive them in so far as these may happen to give the 
picture of Jesus in the way that suits them. And they 
are anxious to get rid of Paul, of whom the editorial 
says: “We all know that the particular cast of Paul’s 
interpretation of Christianity came from the circum- 

198 


WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 


stances of his own life, from the atmosphere of the 
thinking of the Jew and Greek—and Roman—in the first 
century of our era. He knew surely that in the way of 
Christ was the hope of the world; there was the seed of 
the new life, the real resurrection. When he rose to his 
highest, as in the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians, 
he fairly sang the message of Jesus Christ. That chapter 
is as true to the mind of God, we may venture to say, 
as is the fifth chapter of Matthew. But men do not 
think any longer in some of the terms in which Paul 
thought.” We ask in reply, Is it fair to rest Christianity 
upon the “Christianity of Jesus’? By what good reason 
can we expect the full elaboration of the counsel of God 
for the redemption of the world in a time when all the 
great deeds to achieve this were still future? When 
Jesus himself had said that all was yet to be fulfilled, 
_ and that greater things were to be revealed by the Holy 
Spirit after he should have departed? The Modernist 
must be very careful to remember that Jesus lived in 
the days of “‘types and the shadows”’? In his life-time very 
few of the great facts of redemption had come to their 
glorious fruition. The Cross, the resurrection, the as- 
cension, Pentecost had not yet cast their splendor upon 
the full course of the counsel of God for the salvation 
of mankind. The Epistles of Paul had not yet been 
written, these great intellectual achievements, insomuch 
that it has been said that never were profounder produc- 
tions written than the Epistles of Paul to the Romans 
and the Ephesians. All these were necessary to show in 
heightened measure the “breath and length and height 
and depth of the knowledge of the love of Christ which 
passeth understanding”’. 

But even then as it was, this may be said for the 
“Christianity” of Jesus that his presentation of religion 

199 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


was not a mere altruism; nor did he require salvation 
by works; he recognized the necessity of the sacrificial 
system; he insisted most emphatically upon the regenera- 
tion of the heart by the Holy Spirit; He directed to 
Himself as the only way of salvation, requiring penitence 
for sin and faith in Himself; He must Himself be “lifted 
up” that so salvation should come; He believed in eternal 
life and in eternal death; etc. Furthermore, there are no 
traces of the Modernist idea as if Jesus should have made 
a difference between form and essence. On the contrary. 
Jesus received all of the Old Testament in as real and 
straightforward a way as the orthodox do. There is 
nothing “incommensurate”’ between the planes of thought 
in which Jesus lived and concerning which He taught 
than the orthodox view it. There is the most natural 
accord. 

Thinking of the essence and nature of Christianity one 
naturally wants to know what is fundamental, character- 
istic. Opinions vary these days. We think it worth while 
to take the trouble to examine at some length a short 
editorial of The Christian Century of Sept. 6, 1923. 
Quotation marks will indicate our use of the words of 
said editorial. “Most religious people wish to learn and 
to observe the fundamentals of religion. They seek the 
kernel rather than the husk. But the real question is, 
What are the fundamentals of Christianity? A list of 
them has been dogmatically set forth by a conservative 
. group in this country, with no reference at all to any 
induction of the facts. Shall Old Testament conceptions 
of sin and salvation take precedence over those of the 
New Testament?’ We answer: In both Testaments sin 
is held up as a horrid thing, deserving the penalty of a 
righteous judge; and in both Testaments it is constantly 
judged as worthy of death—as it is; whence the Divine 

200 


WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY ? 


righteousness is never compromised, but in the sacrifice 
of the typical lamb as well as in the great Antitype 
occurred the greatest dénouement of the ages: 


“Mercy and truth are met together; 
Righteousness and peace have kissed each other” 


(Psa. 85:10). 


The orthodox do not believe in a characterless, one-sided 
God, but One in whom the whole complex of the attri- 
butes of love and justice coalesce. 

“Shall the man of today treat the Scripture in a way 
entirely different from that of Jesus himself?’ Cer- 
tainly not. Jesus was very emphatic about recognizing 
the Old Testament, so that “one jot or one tittle of the 
law would in no wise pass away till all things be accom- 
plished’”’: sooner would “heaven and earth pass away’. 
If the editorial had in mind Matt. 5:21, 27, 33, 38, 43 
it labors under the mistake of so many Modernists in 
thinking that Jesus objected to some part of the Old 
Testament, whereas he was speaking of interpretations 
of the Scribes. 

“The fundamentals of the Christian religion as agreed 
upon by Jesus and Paul are not the fundamentals that 
are most stressed by modern fundamentalists.’’ Jesus 
stressed a number of things which are surely not to the 
liking of Modernists; and Paul mentions ever so many 
more of these. But probably the editorial really had in 
mind what follows: “Jesus asserts that the first and 
great commandment of the law is to love God. Paul 
said: ‘Now abideth faith, hope and love, and the greatest 
of these is love’”. The language of Jesus is actually 
quoted from the Old Testament. It means that the root 
out of which true piety proceeds is love to God and man. 
Both Jesus and Paul make love fundamental of piety 

201 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


and ethical quality. However, there is danger in being 
too absolute in stressing an emphasis. By doing so we 
are sure to run up contradictions. To conclude, e.g., that 
the requirement of love to man is greater than the com- 
mand to repent in order to be saved, would be a case in 
point. Relative values and proportions must ever be held 
in mind if we would be true exegetes of Scripture—or 
of civil law. Incidentally, this circumstance proves how 
necessary it is, if we would understand Scripture and 
apprehend its general significance, to have a com- 
prehensive, well-correlated view of the whole: this is 
exactly what systematic theology has in mind. It is the 
glory of Reformed theology (so much decried as 
‘“theology’’, as “dogma”, etc.), that it has done this in 
the most consistent and satisfactory manner. But what 
is the tendency today? To present an atomistic, super- 
ficial, off-hand performance. Thus the Modernist will 
glibly quote that text of 1 Cor. 13:13 as the acme of 
theological wisdom rendering needless any further 
thought. But this is too simple to be true. Paul speaks 
of an indispensable root of this root with which we must 
reckon; thus: “because the love of God hath been shed 
abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who hath 
been given unto us” (Rom. 5:5). The Modernist quotes 
these texts of Jesus and Paul as if they warrant the idea 
that love, such as the moral individual is able on his own 
account to show, is “the greatest thing in the world’: 
he ignores the general trend of Scripture by so teaching, 
forgetting that it is “not by works done in righteousness, 
which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he 
saved us” (Titus 3:5). Only when this has happened 
will we be able in some degree to keep this “great com- 
mandment of the law” to “love God’’. 

The editorial continues: “The faith that is so much 

202 


WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY ? 


exalted in the teaching of Paul is no mere mouthing of 
intellectual creeds.” Certainly not! What makes The 
Christian Century say such an obvious thing? The ob- 
session of prejudice against Creeds and against the 
carefully constructed and well formulated systems bring- 
ing out the full wealth of the Sacred Word is so great 
as to evoke a torrent of belittling judgments which are 
unworthy of men who boast culture and scientific poise 
of mind. All these gratuitous intimations are a terrible 
injustice to the orthodox who claim to fear the Lord 
and tremble at His Word. 

Again: “The question asked in the New Testament 
church was not, What do you believe? but, In whom 
do you believe? In shifting the object of faith from a 
person to a dogma, the fundamentalists have themselves 
departed from a fundamental of New Testament Chris- 
tianity.” Oh, how tired such assertion and reasoning 
makes one! Is there no broadminded grasp of things 
any more? Can that be so, that the orthodox shift their 
faith from a person to a dogma? What strange 
hallucinations dogmaphobia produces! Is then dogma 
such a terrible thing? What is it, pray? Simply a well- 
defined expression of what a thing or person is. To 
have faith in the person of Christ I must know who he 
is; the better I know this, the more intelligently and 
satisfactory to the heart will be my relation to Him. 
When Christ asked his disciples, “Who do men say 
that the Son of man is?” they informed Hitn what 
dogmas obtained among the people. When the Savior 
asked what they thought about Him, Peter answered 
most dogmatically: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
Living God!” And our Lord praised him for such good 
theology. When Philip preached to the eunuch he 
preached dogmatically to him concerning the person and 

203 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


deeds of the Messiah. And Philip’s confession of faith 
on which he was baptized was also dogmatic as it 
expressed his conception of the quality and power of the 
Son of God: it may have been short, but it included 
more elements than lay at the surface. Even to the 
orthodox Christianity is not an exercise in mental 
attainment, but the rich expanses of Divine truth becomes 
a means unto the great end to know God, the only true 
God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, which is 
eternal life (John 17:3). But the Modernist, as far 
as he believes in Christ, also does this dogmatically, 
injecting such elements into his conception of him as 
seemeth good to him. 

Again: “The world of today truly wants to know 
what the religion of Jesus is.’ Ah, yes! Oh, how this 
world of today is to be pitied! It needs this religion of 
Jesus more than ever, and it is getting it less, and then 
in adulterated and poisoned form! As he has departed 
from the Scripture principle of the Reformation the. 
Modernist cannot be expected to bring the world the 
true gospel—the strong evangelical appeals to repentance 
and faith which made the Presbyterians and Baptists 
and Methodists of old mighty to the bringing in of souls 
into the Kingdom, being notoriously absent today. In 
the words of the Sermon on the Mount, of which the 
Modernist boasts as the real and sufficient program of 
Christianity, we read—and it applies to him: “Or what 
man is there of you, who, if his son shall ask him for 
a loaf, will give him a stone; or if he shall ask for a fish, 
will give him a serpent?” (Matt. 7:9, 10). Modernists 
actually give stones and serpents to a hungering world. 

A confession concludes the short editorial: “The 
fundamentalists have failed to set it forth’; —yes, we 
acknowledge that with all our privileges we have not 

204 


WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY ? 


come up to the fulness of our duty to our fellow man 
and the honor of God, but we feel assured we were true, 
as far as we went, to His Word. “Sometimes liberals 
have equally failed, through flippancy of mind and 
through their too common habit of negation.” We 
believe that the constant verdict of Church History 
writes in big letters FAILURE over every form of 
Rationalism, and it will apply according to the degree 
of its viciousness and error. Certainly the critic of God's 
Word is apt to be flippant when he dares take issue with 
the Truth of the Everblessed God. His view is a 
negation of Christianity. It denies the supernatural, and 
with it the power’ which comes down from above 1s 
denied. Having denied all this the sanctions of morality 
will disappear. Dr. Francis L. Patton has trenchantly 
remarked: “‘In its last analysis the new Christanity is a 
complete surrender of the supernatural. And the sur- 
render of the supernatural is the surrender of obligatory 
morality itself, save as it is enforced by the sanctions 
of affection, by the jealous care a man has for his own 
interests, by fear of social ostracism, by the sheriff and 
the shotgun.” 

What then is Christianity? If the question is so taken 
as equivalent to saying, Who will be saved? we would 
answer it in various ways according to the point of view 
from which one can consider it. In its deepest sense we 
believe according to the Scriptures: “And as many as 
were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). 
If you bring the matter down to the absolute personal 
quality, we answer in the language of the Savior Him- 
self : “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except one be born 
of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom 
of God” (John 3:5). Since the Holy Spirit applies the 
merits of the redemption in Christ where, how and 

205 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


when He will, this bars any necessary construction of a 
doctrine of infant damnation which least of all can be 
said of the Reformed view of the truth, but who are the 
very ones to whom this harsh doctrine is slanderously 
imputed. Further: If the matter of salvation be brought 
down into the domain of consciousness and personal 
experience, then we answer that those will be saved who 
believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. But here we find 
difficulties enough. In how far and how truly one 
believes in Jesus who without contrition and in a per- 
functory manner thinks of him, making Him only an 
example to be imitated as occasion may offer, it 1s 
not for us to say: this, God only knows, the searcher 
of hearts; and it would be well that the person concerned 
also earnestly search his own heart whether he truly has 
an interest in the salvation procured upon the Cross. 

Hence, when our churches receive people into member- 
ship they cannot go much beyond some sort of a credible 
profession of faith. And so, when we are speaking of 
Christianity, we must beware of identifying the real as 
it is known unto God with the appearances as we have 
to deal with. They that find fault with Christianity can 
make two mistakes in the matter: they may often consider 
as Christian what is only apparently such, or they may 
overlook and fail to see what is Christian as they have 
no access to the deep recesses of the heart and the 
conscience. All these considerations conspire to give some 
difficulty in answering the question: ‘Fundamental? 
Pray, as to what?” 

When certain Churches insist that their ministers shall 
subscribe to their Standards, to uphold and defend them, 
this is not meant to mean that salvation is limited to the 
pale of these churches; for they recognize that God has 
His elect among Roman Catholics and in all Protestant 

206 


WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY ? 


denominations. It is an inexcusable blunder that the 
Presbyterian Church has been represented as making 
subscription to, and belief in the truth of its Standards 
as a test for eternal life. No; we have our Standards 
as a measure for good order. They invite all those who 
can with us believe in the peculiar excellence of our 
Standards, to join our spiritual household. [f they are 
of a different mind, and would serve the Lord Christ 
under other regulations, they are free to do so, and are 
bid God-speed: they are brethren in Christ all the same. 
“Good fences make good neighbors”. 

Are Modernists Christians? Will they be saved? Since 
Rationalism is a system of infinite variety and degrees 
of strength, running all the way from the rankest denial 
of the verities of Christianity to the mildest forms of 
evangelical convictions, it is not easy to draw the line. 
But this is the contention of the orthodox that it is best, 
safest to have such a view of the doctrines of Christianity 
as best comports with the design and the contents of 
the Word. We believe that strict regard to the Scripture 
principle of the Reformation is the path of safety, and 
that the deviation therefrom on the part of the Modernist, 
though perhaps done in good faith, is a dangerous venture 
which may lead them where they do not expect to arrive. 
We cannot but believe that the Holy Spirit will peculiarly _ 
own real loyalty to His Word, and the cardinal doctrines 
as they are to the mind of the Spirit, and as the orthodox 
believe they have apprehended them. There is a pungent 
power to the doctrines of the holiness and righteousness 
of God who is terribly angry with sin, there is power in 
the blood which atones for such sin, the sovereignty of 
divine grace and the freeness of the gift of salvation 
apart from works of righteousness alae we have done— 
these doctrines and so many more have availed to win 


207 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


notable conquests for the Kingdom of Grace, such as 
the Modernist cannot boast of. The run down church 
must needs call in the old-time fiery evangelist who is 
freely to preach in the terms of the old gospel, in order 
to win over the power of sin and to discomfit the devil 
and the world. 

To stand for these things is not to fight “sham battles 
on ancient fields’. The enemy is moving on faster. 
against the Christian phalanx and finding weaker spots 
for successful entrance on account of the Modernist 
self-assurance that all is well, that we must love peace 
and leave things as they are with sweet indulgence, 
meanwhile throwing away our sword which is the Word 
of God. They say that we are to think of the “primacy 
of the spirit and the spiritual”. Indeed, we are doing 
that by our very insistence upon the facts of Scripture 
which set forth the reality of an Incarnation, which 
incontestably teaches the Virgin Birth, which insists upon 
the necessity of blood-shedding, which demands, as the 
very truth of Christianity stands or falls with it (1 Cor. 
15: passim), the bodily resurrection and return of Christ. 
We cannot live on abstracted evaporations. When the 
Modernist moves away from the integrity of the Word, 
and forsakes the only valid principle of authority, he is 
treading on dangerous ground. If we are not to sink 
into a bottomless mysticism we must rest upon the 
revelation of God, and to this the Holy Spirit will bear 
witness. The Modernist can simulate a fine spiritual 
fervor, but whiskey can do that too. People call for that 
which is ‘vital’. The Holy Spirit gives life, and He 
does it by means of that Word which He inspired. The 
words which the Holy Spirit speaks are like the words 
which the Savior spoke: “The words that I have spoken 
unto you are spirit and are life’ (John 6:63) “For the 

208 


WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 


Word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any 
two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of 
soul and spirit, and quick to discern the thoughts and 
intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). When the orthodox 
insists upon the particular interpretations of certain great 
doctrines, he should not be blamed, for God is very 
particular about it, and truth is exceedingly particular, 
aye, it is most intolerant. Feeling that we have most 
solid ground under foot when we fully accept the 
Reformed principle of authority, and deriving in con- 
sequence thereof all these great doctrinal truths which 
are characteristic of Reformed theology, and beholding 
their power in the lives of persons and peoples, our 
answer to the question as what is Christianity is given 
in pointing to the wonderful complex of doctrines as 
set forth in our Standards and as witnessed to by the 
Holy Spirit. ‘““We have either to go on this journey of 
negation and doubt to the very bottomless pit of despair 
or we have to retrace our steps, and go back and back, 
until we rehabilitate Paul and give him his ancient place, 
and back and back until we come to atoning blood!” 
Cie Patton); 


CHAPTER XII 
_THE MINISTRY OF THE DIVINE WORD 


The Scripture principle of the Reformation has a 
particular bearing upon the manner and the extent of 
bringing the revelation of God to mankind. If this 
revelation as set forth in the Holy Scriptures is authori- 
tative, its ministration 1s determined thereby. The Epistle 
to the Hebrews points the way. “God, having of old. 
time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers 
portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these 
days spoken unto us in His Son” (1:1, 2). Jesus spake 
significantly unto Philip: “He that hath seen me hath seen 
tye father reno Believest thou not that I am in the 
Father and the Father in me? The words that I say 
unto. you I speak not from myself, but the Father abiding 
in me doeth his works” (John 14:9, 10). In Christ men 
saw and heard God, and in Him the divine revelation, 
in its critical aspects, was completed. The Savior who 
had received all authority in heaven and in earth (Matt. 
28:18) commissioned his Apostles to preach the Gospel 
to every creature. They had in their possession the facts 
of the fulfillment of God’s counsel of Grace, and the 
Holy Spirit was promised them besides to lead them into 
all truth. That is to say, the Holy Spirit would guide 
them in the elaboration of what Christ had come to do 
and to teach in bringing God’s revelation to a climax. 
And this self-same Holy Spirit, who had moved men 
of old to speak from God, so giving the world the Old 
Testament, could again be expected, according to this 

210 


THE MINISTRY OF THE DIVINE WORD 


promise, to move upon the Apostles in order that the 
counsel of God might reach its highest objective. This 
revelation of God is highest authority even as any one 
would accord authority to any living word spoken from 
His mouth direct from the heavens. And whoever is 
called to engage in bringing the content of this revelation 
to mankind is in Scripture called a “minister”. The 
Greek word for it in the New Testament (diakonos) 
signifies servant, attendant, minister. Thus Paul often 
called himself a “minister” of Jesus Christ, saying e. g., 
in 2 Cor. 3:6 that God had “made him sufficient as a 
minister of the new covenant”. Luke calls himself with 
others who believe and to whom the message of salvation 
was entrusted “ministers of the Word” (Luke 1:1). 
In Acts 6:4 the Twelve declare: “But we will continue 
stedfastly in prayer, and in the Ministry of the word”. 

It is generally thought that the specific task of the 
ministry is to save souls, whence he is conventionally 
and by preference called a “minister of the Gospel’. But 
first of all it must be noted that the word ‘gospel’ in 
Scripture is of wider import than the common impression 
of the word has made it. According to the Scriptures 
the gospel and its preaching reached back into the Old 
Testament, namely: “Seeing therefore it remaineth that 
some should enter thereinto, and that they to whom the 
gospel was before preached failed to enter in because 
of disobedience” (Heb. 4:6). “For unto us was the 
gospel preached as well as unto them’ (Heb. 4:2). 
Of course, this “preaching of the gospel” to these ancient 
Israelites was done in quite a different way than obtains 
among those who preach so-called “gospel sermons”. The 
word ‘gospel’ must therefore not be restricted to some- 
thing specific, but it must embrace all of God’s gracious 
purposes on behalf of a ruined world to which in many 

21! 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


forms and ways, “by divers portions and in divers man- 
ners” (Heb. 1:1), the Divine compassion manifested 
itself. Hence the full idea of the word ‘gospel’ is very 
nearly equivalent with God’s revelation of His grace 
with which all Scripture is instinct. Indeed, all of Scrip- 
ture has a predominantly gracious side to it, otherwise 
God would never have had anything to do with a race’ 
which rebelled against Him and is so insistent in main- 
taining that rebellious spirit: surely, to have exercised 
such good-will towards man is an exhibition of mercy 
and grace which is beyond all comprehension. 

In setting forth, then, in the Old Testament and in 
the New, the desperate nature of sin, its awful fruits, 
the Divine forbearance and wisdom in dealing with the 
situation, we behold the unfolding of the “counsel of 
God”. To fully understand it in all its import and 
relations we need all of Scripture. Whoever then feels 
himself called to labor in the Lord’s vineyard has to 
take careful account of this and may not proceed on his 
own estimations and select what may appeal to his private 
fancy, but he must remember that he is dealing with the 
“counsel of God’’. That counsel is objectively given in 
the Holy Scriptures and they who bring this in its full 
content and in obedience to its specific demands are 
Ministers of the Word. The old-fashioned designation 
of the office was Verbi Dei Minister, abbreviated into 
V. D. M., and thus often appended to the name of the 
officer as his distinctive title. It is a good one: the 
designation is most Scriptural and accurately indicates 
the nature and scope of the office. It were well that 
emphasis were again laid upon the term as it so well 
expresses the quality and the range of the work of the 
Christian minister. Much loose thinking and _ practice 
on this score obtains nowadays. A low valuation has 

212 


THE MINISTRY OF THE DIVINE WORD 


been set upon the sacred office. And in this the clergy 
are themselves largely to blame in being too anxious to 
cater to the prejudices of the people, to curry the favor 
of the world. 

We must therefore repeat the very important fact that 
a correct apprehension of the Reformed principle of 
authority must have due regard for God’s revelation as 
a whole. If ail Scripture comes to us with divine 
authority, then of course the work of the ministry must 
take into strict account the entire range of the truth as 
embodied in the Divine revelation. Paul so states the 
fact and gives, the purpose of this revelation. ‘Every 
Scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, 
for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in 
righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, 
furnished completely unto every good work” (2 Tim. 
3:16, 17). Remember that this text particularly refers 
to the Old Testament. And of course the words of the 
Apostle are true in fully as great a measure in regard 
to the New Testament. This makes all Scriptures one 
complete whole, every part of it indispensable, as all 
of it offers some aspect or other of the counsel of God. 
The Word speaks of the glory and the grace of God 
from beginning to end; of abhorrence of sin and its 
certain judgment. It all speaks of the way unto life 
through the blood of the atonement. The attributes of 
the Divine Being appear consistent with each other in 
both the Testaments. The same eternal destinies loom 
up in both the Dispensations. 

We must therefore not interpret the ministry of the 
Word in too narrow a sense as if its only real and worth- 
while work is to bring the unsaved to faith in Christ. 
For “it is said it is the task of the Church to win souls 
but not to put believers in a dogmatical straitjacket. Is it 

213 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


not true that some of our brethren who are carried away 
by such talk, ask us, that the Church of Christ has to 
win souls? Certainly, but is the Church nothing else than 
a society for the evangelization of the masses? There 
is a higher and safer standpoint than to be guided by 
the maxim of winning souls. We have to glorify God 
in this world. We have to do this not only by winning 
souls, however important this may be, but also by 
learning to know Him in the fulness of His glory” 
(Steffens). Man’s chief end is to glorify God. In this 
high purpose of the Divine counsel the remedial element 
stands in its own relation to the praise of God’s virtues, 
and has its own place in the manifold works of God’s 
power. The Minister of the Word therefore is to unfold 
the excellencies of God’s attributes and works; of His 
glory in creation and providence; of His dealings with 
nations and times. And as respects the welfare of the 
individual the Minister of the Word is used of God to 
make him aware of his guilt, to point him to the cross, 
and to assure him of the divine pardon. But even in 
doing this last for the individual, he is only introduced 
into the rich heritage of grace; there is much more to 
be done in following up the good work begun by the 
Holy Spirit. The tender plant of grace must be nurtured; 
it must be strengthened; it must be fortified against the 
danger of relapse; the rescued sinner must be built up. 
The latter expression “built up’ opens up a world of 
possibilities. In ministering to the Word of God the 
riches of grace can be unfolded with ever greater effect 
in the lives of the saints. Paul prayed “that He would 
grant you, according to the riches of His glory, that ye 
may be strengthened with power through His Spirit in 
the inward man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts 
through faith; to the end that ye, being rooted and 


214 


THE MINISTRY OF THE DIVINE WORD 


grounded in love, may be strong to comprehend with 
all the saints what is the breadth and length and depth, 
and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, 
that ye may be filled unto all the fulness of God’’ (Eph. 
3:16-19). Even more marvelous is the fact of its not 
being exhausted in this world, for Paul also says: “that 
in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches 
of His grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus” 
(Eph. 2:7). How this sublime office is degraded when 
its topics turn to the trivial affairs of this world! 

The office of the Minister of the Word will, therefore, 
be viewed in quite a different light as this is done from 
the Reformed or from the Rationalist standpoint in its 
variations. As the emphasis is placed upon the object 
which is to be dealt with, namely the Word, the Reformed 
must regard it with sublime awe as being the wonder- 
work of God the Holy Spirit. To the Reformed 
theologian it is the subdued effulgence of the divine 
glory as the Person of Christ was this on earth. To the 
orthodox that Word speaks heavenly wisdom on the 
greatest questions of life and thought. Here are the 
clues to a divine philosophy of all things which does not 
involve self-contradiction nor needs to be revised and 
readjusted as all humanborn systems have been. To the 
Rationalist the Bible is but Hebrew literature, written 
indeed by men of great genius; but this literature betrays 
crude conceptions of God and relates stories which are 
a great strain upon the better judgment of the enlightened 
mind. Of course, the Reformed, having so high an 
estimation of the Word as Divine in character, put an 
emphasis upon the word minister which makes him 
entirely dependent upon and subordinate to this Word: 
he “trembles” at the Word of God. He bows to the 
majesty and the authority of what God gave as His 

215 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


very own, and it is for him faithfully and unquestionably 
to dispense it. The Modernist, on the other hand, 
presumes to amend it and take issue with it. Instead of 
being a minister of the Word he is the scholarly thinker 
who feels himself perfectly competent to pass on its 
quality; he can decide what is worthy of divinity; he 
dares ask: ‘““What doest THOU ?”’ 

It is remarkable that however the Bible be viewed, 
it is a book which has engaged the full powers of the 
greatest intellects for its interpretation. This very fact 
requires of anyone who would in any wise administer 
the Word, that he should do justice to it. It will not do 
to pick up at random some glittering object that lies on 
the surface, but this mine of precious stones and minerals 
should be explored, its various treasures brought to the 
surface, assorted and treated to get each in its own kind. 
Too much of superficial method and snap-judgment has 
been accorded the Scriptures by those who pose as 
ministers of the Word. The great truths do not lie at 
the surface but need to be gathered, assorted and 
assimilated with painstaking care. God is not doing 
things in cut-and-dried, mechanical ways, but His way 
is the processes of life which are complex and rich in 
content, and will reward the arduous effort of the de- 
lighted and amazed explorer. This is the curse of our 
times that whereas scientists and lawyers excel in 
profound investigations and clear-cut statements, our 
theologians who have to deal with even higher things 
offer a crazy variety of half-cooked ideas, superficial 
platitudes, bizarre construction of doctrines and a strain- 
ing after novelty and sensationalism. What is prized in 
the eminent minds of the bar, thoroughness and accuracy, 
due regard to the bright minds which thought before 
them, this is howled down in the theologian with the 

216 


THE MINISTRY OF THE DIVINE WORD 


cries of “dogma!” “theology!” “traditionalist! The 
superficial minister of the Word is like an uncultured 
foreman of construction who lays down brick after brick 
and does not perceive the magnificence of the entire . 
building. As a child admires the sailing soap-bubbles, 
so the minister of the word who offers an anecdote or 
two and some striking remark on things indifferent to 
the seriousness of life, entirely misses the purpose of his 
high calling. While men are famishing for the bread of 
life he is feeding them on vanity and vacuity. While 
the sword of the Divine judgment hangs trembling over 
the souls of men, this preacher of the world intimates 
that there is no need of uneasiness. And it is no wonder 
that educated men and women absent themselves very 
largely from divine services, not altogether perhaps because 
they are unconverted, but also, likely, because they get 
nothing that appeals to them as a forceful and dignified 
_presentation. In this age of superficiality and ignorance 
of the Scriptures the Modernist with his easier concep- 
tions of things, his deference to what human judgment 
readily accepts, is carrying almost everything before him. 
The ministers of the Word have not been feeding the 
people from the strong meat of the Word; they have 
themselves lost the taste for it; and instead have been 
feeding the people with that which is not bread. And thus 
neglected large numbers have become the easy prey of 
all sorts of vagaries which seemed to offer real spiritual 
nutriment; and it has actually been obtained in ways 
which are not altogether safe for the full development 
of the spiritual man but still gave satisfaction in an 
immediate need. 

While the Reformed rejoice in the wealth of the 
Divine revelation the Modernist has made himself poor 
according to the degree in which he carries out his 

217 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


principle. Because of these degrees we may seem to be 
unjust to moderate Liberals but they should carefully 
consider how they stand on an inclined plane where the 
next deviation downwards is easily taken. Therefore, 
once more, as the Modernist has given up the Reformed 
principle of authority, he does not realize how poor he 
has made himself. For him the objective basis with its 
strength is gone; there is left a limited—as limited as 
he wants to make it—range of ideas which are construed 
according to his own conceptions. He stands on the 
subjective basis which necessarily must be as various as 
their conceptions of it. There is left to them a limited 
range of facts of doubtful necessary values. An editorial 
by Dr. F. Lynch in Christian Work of Oct. 27, 1923, 1s 
characteristic. He insists that it is the duty of the Church 
to preach the Gospel—the Gospel only. The Apostles 
did no more. And this consists in the proclamation of 
certain historical incidents in the life of Jesus. His 
kindly deeds and winsome words, his death and resurrec- 
tion—a few bare facts—and how much these Modernists 
disagree amongst each other as to what is authentic and 
how far the significance of the life and words of Jesus 
may extend! What is really significant about the person 
of Christ, what character His deeds and words really 
exhibited, why his death availed to reconcile unto God, 
what his resurrection meant, if indeed there was a physical 
resurrection—all these things must be avoided. The un- 
searchable riches of grace inherent in all these things 
must be ignored. How unworthy such views and methods 
are of intelligent men, who in any other walk of life will 
insist upon tracing out the beauties and the values of all 
kinds of objects of knowledge. As highly as a painstak- 
ing examination of things physical, mental, economic, 
etc., is praised in the man of intelligence and culture, so 
218 





THE MINISTRY OF THE DIVINE WORD 


severely is this very attitude towards the wisdom of God 
frowned upon. With how poor a Gospel that leaves us! 
What a pitiful conception of the greatest vocation on 
earth, the Ministry of the Divine Word! And what must 
these Modernists do to evade the demands of the high 
ofce? For one thing they take issue with the Master 
Himself in decrying the Old Testament on which our 
Lord set such high value. Says Dr. Lynch: “And what 
has any theory of the Old Testament got to do with the 
Gospel? Christ established a Church, gave it a Gospel, 
sent it out into the world to preach it. He did not give 
it the Old Testament. There was no Old Testament. He 
never told them it was their authority. Indeed, He often 
told them that He superseded it. ‘Ye have heard it said 
Bele hire but J say’’”’. What contradictions of the Savior 
Himself (John 5:39; Matt. 5:17-19; etc.). And our 
Lord had not the text of the Old Testament in mind 
in the ‘but J say’: He referred to private rabbinical 
misinterpretation. To what poverty a man dooms himself 
who surrenders the only sound and fruitful principle of 
authority. He is no longer a Minister of the Divine 
Word, but a setter forth of human private views. 

The typical Modernist view of Christianity appears 
in an editorial in Christian Work of Nov. 3, 1923. “The 
essence of the difference between Fundamentalists and 
Modernists is that their modes of thought run in different 
planes, their ideas in some cases are incommensurate... . 
The older thought generation holds the form to be the 
essential thing; the newer generation is concerned with 
the force within, however the form may vary.” It then 
quotes Dr. F. L. Patton’s definition of Christianity. 
“Christianity is a supernatural revelation of a way of 
salvation from sin through the incarnation and blood- 
shedding of the Son of God.” And the editorial then 

219 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


asks: “Does that definition comply with Jesus’ own - 
idea of religion? Again and again we must bid those 
who want to know what Christianity is, to turn back to 
the Gospels, above all to those Gospels which give us 
the picture of Jesus most directly, with the least trans- 
mission of His personality through other minds...... 
We all know that the particular cast of Paul’s inter- 
pretation of Christianity came from the circumstances 
of his own life, from the atmosphere of the thinking of 
the Jew and Greek—and Roman—in the first century 
GI OUrleray one But may not the modern man expect 
this of his Fundamentalist brother, that the latter will 
be ready to accept the Christianity of Jesus, Christianity 
as it is expressed in the best authenticated words of 
Jesus?” The ideas of this quotation will be met with in 
ever so many articles of the more or less advanced 
Liberal. To preach according to this view is no longer 
to be a Minister of the Word; it is to be the Minister 
of an uncertain personality, the value of whose work 
must apply uncertainly and as indefinitely to the needs 
of mankind, as the preacher represents it. 

Uncertain? Indefinite? Why, even the “historic Jesus”’ 
is a matter of doubt. Not all the Gospels—the only 
possible accounts of him—can be trusted. What is 
authentic in the best of them? Even his words have been 
incorrectly given sometimes. And who may decide what 
really the spirit of Jesus is when the testimony of the 
Apostles must be ruled out? Are we going to submit 
to the authority of the Modernist? Which one? What 
kind of preaching is that where the facts are so largely 
chimerical? How, different has the character and the 
effect of that preaching been which rested squarely on 
the basis of the Word in its full range of fact and 
interpretation! In their case it was the power of God 

220 


THE MINISTRY OF THE DIVINE WORD 


unto salvation unto every one that believes’—we would 
add: to everyone that believes in that way and all of the 
literal fact and finds his soul kindled by the fuel of the 
divine deeds for him. 

And how insistent was the “historic Jesus’ himself to 
appeal to the Old Testament! And how the Apostles 
“cave the transmission of his personality” through the 
light of the Old Testament shed upon his person and 
work! All of Scripture testifies of Him; all of it 1s 
needed to understand Him. For to understand Him we 
must needs know the nature and penalty of sin, its 
development and history as it culminated in the sacrifice 
of the Son of God for the guilty. The wealth of divine 
ideas in the ceremonials of Israel are not negatived but 
illustrated by the incarnation and death of our Lord. 
All of it is of one piece of the counsel of God. There 
is a profound divine philosophy about it all which cannot 
dispense with a single link in the chain. He is a poor 
setter forth of the counsel of God who omits so very 
much of it. He is like the untrained man visiting an art 
gallery who admires some picture for a glaring stroke 
of coloring here and there, and does not take into account 
all the shades and accessories which constitute to the 
true artist the glory of the whole. It is a great pity that 
so many excellent intellects in the ministry, with such 
a variety of gifts, so many good thinkers and orators, 
have not devoted themselves to the fulness of the Word 
of God and would have produced far more profound 
impressions upon the general public. There has been too 
much disregard of the Word; too little belief in its true 
content; and instead of developing this, there has been 
too much use of Scripture as a mere point of departure, 
then to proceed to spin out of their own small conceptions 
of things what a superficial-grown public approves of. 

22T 


”* 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


And how largely must the popular preacher call to his 
aid the charm of the accessories? The veriest stuff and 
nonsense can become acceptable to an audience, when 
the preacher summons to his aid the arts of oratory, of 
choice language and the spice of some sparkling anecdote. 
But this is not preaching the Word. The strength and 
the power of the real men of God lay in other things. 
They were strong as they. wielded the sword of the Spirit, 
and not in their desire to charm as the harlot does with 
paint and powder to catch the unwary. Where lay the 
power of Peter and Paul, of Luther and Calvin, of 
Wesley and Whitefield, of Finney and Moody, of 
Spurgeon and Talmage, except it be in their unconditional 
stand upon the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture? 
Their work was based on a ground which availed to pull 
down the strongholds of Satan, to startle the conscience, 
to issue in that morality which ensures soundness to our 
personal and national existence. 

This is borne out by a curious editorial in The Christian 
Century of Jan. 17, 1924: “Something atavistic works 
in the churchly mind the moment it begins to consider 
the task of evangelism. If a minister thinks of calling 
another minister to his aid in an evangelistic meeting, © 
he almost certainly selects one much more conservative 
than himself. How much pastors have called in popular 
evangelists to preach stuff which they would not preach 
themselves and no longer believe, will be known only in 
heaven. The list of preachers called by local federations 
and ministerial bodies to hold forth in the theaters during 
passion week reveals the same curious tendency. When 
the man of the street is approached in this special way 
he is asked to believe something which the religious 
leaders of the community itself no longer believe and 
teach, but which long habit has associated with the 


22 


a 


THE MINISTRY OF THE DIVINE WORD 


evangelistic habit. How much of biblical infallibility, 
special providence in the realm of physical nature, blood 
atonement in a physical sense, and second coming will 
be preached in Lent again this year? The disaffected but 
wistful business men of many a city will be threatened 
by a united Protestantism again this year with a type 
of doctrine in which three-fourths of the pastors of the 
city no longer believe. What kind of men will be sent 
into the colleges this year to speak to students? Will 
they be of the Sherwood Eddy type, or of another type? 
Will faith be made as hard as possible for college 
students, or as rational as possible?’ And then The 
Christian Century thinks that the only kind of converts 
who will in the long run stay by the church must be won 
in the honest way of the new evangelism! This editorial 
is an undesigned testimony to the power of divine truth, 
and we dare say that in the long run the Modernist 
method of evangelism will bear very little fruit and will 
fail to move the mighty world into the paths of righteous- 
ness and holy living. The rationalism of Germany in 
the eighteenth century bore only poisonous fruits, 2) he 
Modernism of the Netherlands which arose in 1855 had 
only a deadening influence as compared with the mighty 
movement under Kuyper which for a time gained a 
majority of the seats in the States General and governed 
the land. The culture and the liberalism of Germany in 
these later days have not saved Europe from its bath 
of blood and economic disaster. And from this direction 
the seeds of Modernism have come to America and have 
lately begun to increase at an alarming rate. This land 
of the Puritan, the Knickerbocker and the Huguenot, 
from whom have sprang men of sterling worth and 
heroic mould as founded in the noblest conceptions of 
liberty and civic righteousness, due to that strength of 
223 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


character begotten of a recognition of the Divine 
authority. Now that the poisons of liberalism, self- 
sufficiency and insubordination have more largely entered 
the body politic and the church, we have reason to be 
alarmed for our safety. Civil historians, such as Ferrero, 
and others, have already forecast the disintegration of 
our Republic: they have based it on certain evil practices 
which operated in the downfall of other governments, 
but they have not gone deep enough to the root of the 
matter in our case, the forsaking of the fear of God and 
disregard of His Word as the expression of His 
authority. A liberal construction of things easily de- 
generates into license; and this in turn begets anarchy 
and chaos. 
In the midst of the many difficulties into which the 
world has lately been plunged confessions have been 
heard from unexpected quarters that the right methods 
have not been followed and the proper remedies not 
applied. The cry has gone forth and has been eagerly 
repeated: “Why not try Christianity?” This sounded 
very plausible; but, on a little thought, is it not curious 
that Christianity at this late date has never yet been 
tried? It is, however, broadly intimated that the ministry 
all these centuries has not been discharging its duty, and 
that preaching has been a “parrotting of obsolete phrases 
and a juggling with the unrealities of threadbare theolo- 
gies’! Now we submit that people should be wiser than 
even to countenance such sweeping assertions. Still, what 
do our good friends mean by “trying Christianity”? 
How must it be done? A strong article by an eminent 
man carefully analyzed brings it down to these two 
points: 1. Let everybody make up his mind to have the 
spirit of Christ; 2. Let everybody now proceed to 
practice Christianity. This is exceedingly simple! It is 
22d 


THE MINISTRY OF THE DIVINE WORD 


merest platitude! However, it may not be forgotten that 
Christianity has always been tried more or less. Faithful 
witnesses for the Master have ever been in evidence. 
Preaching has, of course, been imperfect enough, but by 
no means to such an extent as to render the world without 
excuse. Man has always sought out many inventions. 
The greatest danger to Christianity has not come from 
the camp of its declared enemies, but from the midst of 
its professed adherents. The enemy has often come into 
the circle of the saints and asked the question: ““Has God 
said?” So to-day no greater harm could come to the 
Lord’s cause than by the method of the Modernist, who 
has discarded part of the Divine revelation and has cast 
doubt upon the rest. And these are the men who now 
come and say, in view of the distress which they see 
all around them: “Why not try Christianity’?’’ And how 
do they want to try it? By a method which is foreign to 
the genius of Christianity. They hardly recognize the 
Master in his Divine authority and quality; they do not 
accept his sacrificial death as the only way to life; they 
take small account of the heinousness of sin; they have 
an altogether too high opinion of their own ability unto 
spiritual good and of acquiring a righteousness before 
God on their own account. They teach contrary to these 
things, and therefore their ministry is not a ministry 
of the Word: it is practically “another religion”, and 
they should therefore not speak of trying a Christianity 
which they have virtually rejected. 

The right answer to the anxious inquiry as to what 
should be done to be saved out of our present difficulties is 
to attend to the proper discharge of the Ministry of the 
Word. This cannot possibly be done unless our minsters 
make a thorough estimate of the Reformed principle of 
authority. This will have to be well understood, heartily 

225 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


accepted and lived up to unflinchingly. It will once more 
give them the Word with its fulness of truth and grace 
and power. It furnishes the full range of the facts of 
revelation, the great doctrines whose perception by the 
mind (for man is a reasonable being) 1s used by the 
Holy Spirit in dealing with the soul. The minister of 
the Word must hold forth the facts of Christianity as 
it has so many bearings upon the spiritual life. Therefore 
it is the duty of the minister of the Word to bend all 
his energies in searching out this immense treasure of 
Divine wisdom, comparing Scripture with Scripture and 
making it the basis of his exhortation and instruction 
in righteousness. This to be sure gives us a system of 
doctrine; but God is a God of order, and we shoud be 
most ready to accept it. 

And now to our mind there is nothing that has ap- 
proached the general agreement and clearness of all these 
various Confessions of Faith, which, strange almost to 
say, has been the characteristic of the distinctively 
Reformed family of churches. And although these 
Confessions were not professedly received by other 
denominations, nevertheless in a very real sense, the 
deep range of truths contained in them have characterized 
the sound preaching of Baptists and Methodists and 
many others, when they were mighty men of God used 
for the conversion of souls. They could not help in so 
doing, and thus they were true Ministers of the Word. 
For they spoke of the full range of the attributes of God; 
of the fall of man and his natural corruption; of the 
necessity of regeneration; of the substitutionary atone- 
ment; of justification by faith; etc. These all proceeded 
from the Reformed principle of authority, which gave 
them the Scriptures, and being loyal to it, they were more 
or less united on the basic elements of Christianity. But 

226 


THE MINISTRY OF THE DIVINE WORD 


this cannot be expected of the Liberal. His principle 
of authority leads him anywhere, and listening to the 
deceptive impulses of the natural heart and the reasonings 
of the natural mind is apt to lead him away from the 
very things which characterize Christianity. The Chris- 
tian Century has therefore done the Christian public a 
great service in confessing honestly that Liberalism is 
very nearly “another religion’. And they who are of 
that mind we can no longer acknowledge as Ministers 
of the Word but the Ministers of Private Views largely 
contradictory to the realities of spiritual things. 

To conclude. It would seem that hardly anything 
would be more in order than once more seriously to 
consider the nature and the scope of the Reformed 
principle of authority. On it depends our possession of 
the Divine revelation. It gave power to the preaching 
of the Apostles. It shook ail Europe in days of the’ 
Reformation. It has been the cause and the accompani- 
ment of all revivals of religion. This should be availed 
of in this terrible time of world-wide national and 
ecclesiastical distress and disorder. 


227 


GHAPEERsXITI 
THE PROGRAM OF REFORMED CHURCHES 


The Reformed principle of authority calls for its own 
program under which it operates according to its own 
principle. This hinges on the nature of Scripture and 
its use. 

Professedly these Scriptures have generally been re- 
garded as the Divine revelation, but interpreted in 
divergent ways. Since the days of the Apostles the 
Church has followed a course which has resulted in 
degeneration whence a reformation became necessary. 
In the sixteenth century the foundations of Christianity 
were thoroughly examined, and a much better basis than 
ever before was provided for the soundness of the 
Church. And we believe that while Luther was the great 
man of God of heroic mould to blaze the rough path- 
way John Calvin was preéminent in correctly formula- 
ting the great principles which underlie the true Christian 
religion. He furnishes what is known as the Reformed 
type of doctrine and practice. The specific Reformed 
Churches are heirs to a glorious heritage whose great 
principles still hold true and await further development ; 
some restatement, perhaps; and certainly, fuller applica- 
tion. In these later days we have not come up to our 
high calling. There obtains neither the grasp of the 
situation nor the disposition of bestirring ourselves, but 
the general opinion as well of the ministry as of the — 
laity has been caught by the glitter of a practical pietism 
of a modern cast as sufficient for the demands of 

228 


THE PROGRAM OF REFORMED CHURCHES 


religion; and as a result, we have been drifting away 
from safe moorings. 

It is therefore more than time that all seriously 
examine themselves as to their position. The din of 
jangling voices is deafening. The current that carries the 
weak away from their safety is strong. It will not do 
to be content with glittering generalities, which are 
partially unsound, and which are so apt to endanger the 
remaining sound parts. We must be firm and brave 
enough to refuse in joining in the general chorus in 
praise of the kind of religion now in vogue, and we 
must take strong position on the platform which made 
our fathers great and strong. 

At the risk of some repetition, but serving somewhat 
as a_resumé of what has been said above, we shall 
conclude our book in indicating the sphere of action 
of Reformed Churches as required by their principle, the 
present departure from it, and what must be done to 
get back. 3 

Reformed Churches rest upon Scripture in a specific 
way as the only source and rule of faith and life. In 
expressing themselves definitely and systematically for 
the Church as a whole, it has felt the need of a Con- 
fession of Faith or Creed. These furnish the official 
and well-considered sum-total of the best minds and 
hearts on the marrow of Scripture. Thus we recognize 
the authority of the Church, but always in such a manner 
that it remains strictly subservient to Scripture, and its 
beliefs are always open to new testing and comparison 
with Scripture. At the same time the Reformed recognize 
the mystical element in the work of the Holy Spirit, but 
always as testifying in strict accordance with the contents 
of the Word. They also recognize correctness in life; 
but tobe acceptable to God it must proceed from faith, 

229 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


which in turn needs to be based upon the truth as it is 
in Jesus. True religion is this. to know God and Jesus 
Christ whom He has sent, and to serve Him according 
to the revelation He has given. While the motive-power 
of spiritual life proceeds from the heart regenerated by 
the Holy Spirit, its availability and direction is determined 
by the Word given by that same Holy Spirit who limits 
Himself to it, making use of the contents of Scripture, 
doctrinal as well as ethical. Hence, the truth as a whole 
must be the continual source of the soul’s contemplation, 
for thus his feelings will be most effectually and per- 
manently warmed, and his sanctified will will lead to 
well-considered action. 

To gain the fulness of the truth is not the simple 
matter of picking it up from the surface of Scripture. 
It is like the ore in a mine whose gold is yielded after 
much labor and refining. Hence, profound study and 
a comprehensive grasp to reach the full compass is 
necessary : in this way alone the many intimate relations 
are coordinated into one great harmony. Thus the 
marvelous organism of the Divine wisdom looms up to 
our view. 

There must be progress also. Already in the days of 
the Apostles believers were slackening up in their search, 
and were going backwards (Heb. 6:1-3). And in con- 
nection with this very fault comes the ominous warning 
of retrogression in grace (vv. 4 and on). It was neces- 
sary for them once more to resume their course and 
‘go on to perfection”. This very same situation obtains 
to-day. 

John Calvin gave to his great theological work the 
significant title: “Institutes of the Christian Religion”. 
This was not due to arrogance, but to conviction of the 
truth. Founding all on Scripture and recognizing a 

230 


THE PROGRAM OF REFORMED CHURCHES 


historical continuity of the work of the Holy Spirit in 
the visible church, he was true to the idea of the one 
“Holy Universal Church’. All the Reformed Churches 
thought thus, whence in principle they were averse to 
sectarianism. However, they recognized the Church as 
always in need of reformation, even as they felt this to 
be the ceaseless neéd of every individual Christian. 
Calvin and the other Reformers lived in a time when 
reformation was notoriously necessary, and even many 
Catholics in these days were calling loudly for “reforma- 
tion in head and members’”’. However, the actual accom- 
plishment of this was opposed within the bosom of the 
Church, but our fathers persisted in giving their testimo- 
ny, and came to action. That as a consequence they were 
cast out of the Church was not at their direct initiative, 
but this became a situation which was forced upon them; 
whence the Roman Church was really the schismatic. 
Furthermore, the Reformed so loved the Church as the 
one body of Christ, that they were averse to naming it 
after a person, but simply indicated its general quality, 
or the circumstances in which it appeared, whence no 
name for a church is so expressive and pertinent, so 
much devoid of giving offence, and so accordant with 
the [Xth Article of the Apostles’ Creed as the designation 
“Reformed’”’. 

Although our fathers did not agree with others in 
important points of doctrine they did not deny them 
a place in the Kingdom of Grace, and were ever ready 
to recognize their services in its behalf. Nevertheless 
they firmly believed in the superiority of their own 
views. Many are holding that the mere fact of being 
Christians is of such importance that all zeal for special 
views is superfluous. To grasp the bearing of this 
specious objection to the necessity of full-orbed Christian 

231 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


belief, it must be noted that there is a difference between 
the being of the Church and its well-being; and the trans- 
fer of the attributes of the one to the other has brought 
endless confusion in reasoning on the subject. The Holy 
Universal Church has always existed, even in the Dark 
Ages, and in times of deepest moral corruption. Though 
false doctrine and immorality creep in ever so much, 
God knows His own: in such times there have always 
been the “seven thousand who have not bowed the knees 
to Baal’. This, then, concerns the being of the Church, 
for whose existence and integrity we need not fear; for 
all this lies in the Divine good pleasure and obeys His 
irresistible will. But this very aspect of the matter 
touches the sphere of the forbidden things of God, of 
which we may not take advantage, nor regulate our 
conduct thereby. The other aspect of the matter touches 
the well-being of the Church. This pertains to the human 
sphere wherein lie our duties and responsibilities, which 
call for active exertion with their Divinely appointed 
fruitage. ; 
This distinction, then, has direct bearing upon our 
estimation of the many denominations existent. In the 
light of the being of the Church these divisions do not 
matter, since God knows His own in all these, the Roman 
Catholic elect included. But it does matter very much 
in the light of the well-being of the Church. The con- 
fusion of these two distinctions is the cause of the 
persistent cry that we must not stress beliefs because 
true believers are to be found in all ages and everywhere. 
But this is transferring the attributes of one conception 
to another—the logical fallacy of “shifting one’s base”’. 
As we thus take advantage of the forbidden aspect of the 
Church, we are banking on the integrity of the being of 
the Church in such a way as to allow neglect of the things 
232 


THE PROGRAM OF REFORMED CHURCHES 


which must make for its well-being. Man has his own 
work and responsibility also in the care for the Church. 
Here obtains as wide a sphere as anywhere else to 
proceed on correct principles, to be loyal to truth and 
righteousness, to seek after improvement, and jealously 
to maintain what we have. This is imperative for the 
simple reason that there have always been tendencies 
towards declension from the truth and from holy living. 
In His inscrutable wisdom God has permitted this to 
prevail in His Church for reasons of His own and to 
operate according to the law of reaping what one has 
sown. It is a part of the range of struggling to which 
fallen man is called. Even Divine truth can escape man, 
and he must watch and work for it. 

Here, then, lies the responsibility of seeking after, 
developing and maintaining the truth which is the body 
in which the soul of religion lives and moves and has 
its being. Religion is the expression of the sense of 
relationship to Deity and the attempt to answer its 
demands. This definition locates the roots of religion 
in the heart (the basis of our personality), nevertheless 
that which comes forth from our inmost self must. be 
defined and clarified. This is done by the faculty of 
knowing. The human spirit is a whole with faculties 
which do not work separately but in the most intimate 
and complex manner. Hence, what is vaguely felt and 
perceived, needs to be known and so made clear. Thus 
understood, Divine truth in its full compass becomes 
the food of the soul. This must be maintained to avoid 
the errors of a bald mysticism. To that general class 
belong the people who think that doctrinal knowledge 
is not necessary for true religion. However, they possess 
it nevertheless, and whatever part of it is true, that they 
derived from Scripture: the fact is that the Holy Spirit 


233 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


refuses to give revelation of original content to any soul ; 
but He leads into the truth by means of the Word. He 
develops the content of that Word for those who rightly 
seek, and they have the best chance of walking in the 
ways of the Lord. 

What then is truth? All that the prophets have spoken ; 
all the revelation of the riches of His grace; all the doc- 
trinal facts constituting the ground of saving truth; all 
issuing in obedience to the Divine will in holy living. 
The Savior concisely characterized it: “And this is life 
eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, 
and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent’? (John 17:35 
For this reason the Reformers have always insisted on 
instruction in the Word, specifically including in this 
the leading outlines of the structure of the Divine wis- 
dom concerned in our salvation, and they held that we 
cannot be too particular in striving to obtain as full a 
conception as possible of the riches of His grace as these 
are exhibited in the Divine thoughts, which we endeavor 
to set forth as complete and harmonious as they are in 
God Himself. But let it be noted, that along with this 
the fathers have never denied the concomitant office of 
the mystical element: this was equally real to them and 
indispensable. In their practice the intellectual and the 
mystical elements were definitely combined, and hence, 
both because of their comprehensive knowledge of 
Scripture and the tender susceptibility of their regenerate 
heart, our fathers could be used by the Holy Spirit for 
the clear expression of the Divine wisdom. Furthermore, 
since they understood the Word so well, they had a | 
basis for the assurance of salvation of so firm a character 
as to contrast strongly with the notorious lapses to which 
Mystics have been liable. 

The Christian Church, of course, ever endures; but 


234 


THE PROGRAM OF REFORMED CHURCHES 


it has been subject to many vicissitudes. As we regard 
the Divine aspect of things solely, we are unable to 
fathom God’s providence in allowing serious declension 
in the Church, neither do we understand the reason and 
the manner of His interference with His special grace 
to turn the erring Church into better paths. 

But since we are placed within a sphere of human 
relationships, with its laws of life and action, with its 
responsibilities and rewards, we must be governed by 
them and expect failure or success according to the 
measure of obedience to divinely ordained means.. Hence, 
while the efficient causes lie in God, so much of which 
is hidden from us, nevertheless we are to proceed on 
principles which God has laid down for us as the rule 
of our actions. A most fundamental one is that the 
Church is ever to see to it that the foundations of truth 
le secure; and she must believe that the operation of 
grace there finds its most congenial sphere of activity. 
“The clearer and fuller the mysteries of grace are appre- 
hended and understood, so much the better instrument 
will the Holy Spirit find at hand for sounding forth the 
divine melody” (Kuyper). And error, though for a 
time ever so attractive and plausible, will never completely 
prove to have afforded the mind a satisfactory congruence 
of all things. The problems of being will persistently call 
for their own solution however much man may be con- 
tinuing to suppress the facts. The pieces of life’s enigma 
will fit together into a consistent whole when they are 
laid in the only one possible right way. Furthermore, 
a neglect of zeal for the truth in favor of enjoying the 
luxury of mere sensuous piety will not endure to safe- 
guard the welfare of the Church. Truth is irrepressible : 
it demands to be known; and it is the guide in the only 
right path. Whence, if the Reformed conception is the 

235 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


right one, we will find it come up again and again for 
notice, even if the whole world should have gone on 
awhile building on other principles. The history of 
philosophy is witness to this. As it seeks to delve into 
the origin and being of things, it has run a course, 
according to George Henry Lewes, which leaves us at 
the present time in precisely the same point at which 
we were in the fifth century, thus completing a circle. 
Thus error in any form will fail. After lapses in the 
Church, it must always come back again to a new vision 
of the only truth. Something in the constitution of things 
cries out for its vindication. Kuyper has thus portrayed 
the inevitable process which faces the Church as she 
stands before the range of God’s revelation, and as she 
essays to study and assimilate it “God’s special revelation 
having been completed, its content needed to be taken 
up in the illuminated consciousness of regenerate human- 
ity and reproduced therefrom. That this task was laid 
upon regenerate humanity it did at first not in the least 
understand. If it had been left to its own discretion, 
it would have withdrawn itself in mystic enjoyment of 
its treasure of salvation, fully contented, after the same 
impulse which so much later obtained in Methodistic 
circles, especially in the company of the Reveil, and 
which looks down upon theological labor with a sort 
of spiritual self-conceit. But the Holy Spirit has driven 
the Church to this labor through the reaction which 
arose from the consciousness of unregenerate humanity, » 
which had for its object the dissection and destruction 
of the contents of Revelation, yea, of Revelation itself. 
And not until on that account real peril had forced this 
scientific labor to be performed, was a taste for it 
acquired, according to the maxim: “by learning we learn 
to learn’; and thus the desire was fostered whence the 
236 


THE PROGRAM OF REFORMED CHURCHES 


eventual flourishing of theological study can be ex- - 
plained” (Encyc. II. 587, 588). 

The prevalent departure from the basis of Reformed 
belief which entails painstaking theological study is 
excused with praising Bible study and adhesion to 
“evangelical truth’. 

But there is confusion of concept in this. For, how- 
ever much one may seek to avoid appearances, it is after 
all utterly impossible to avoid arriving at doctrines as 
a result of any kind of Bible study. And hence there 
is dishonesty in decrying theology when in such Bible 
study it is actually cultivated after a fashion. And what 
is worse, is the fact that this latter, which is praised so 
highly, is indeed a species of theological study but it is 
- carried on in a loose and slipshod manner, according 
to unsound and conflicting principles with corresponding 
results. Whatever men may say, the minds of people are 
filled with various theological views, but regulative safe- 
guards being absent, these concepts are apt to be hazy 
and erroneous. Besides, it is an evidence of indolence, 
lack of a serious estimate of things, that people neglect 
the study of principles as they can do within their range 
even, and allow themselves to absorb doctrines in a casual 
way and at a minimum of effort: Lacking these methods, 
the full-orbed beauty of the truth is neither seen nor 
utilized. 

There is a sickening superficiality about all this. 
Creeds are rejected as if they are arbitrary compositions 
violently deduced from Scripture by a few designing 
men. But they represent the common voice of eminent 
believers, and signify far more than the individualistic 
opinions which are offered instead. From this bubbles 
up a bedlam of ideas, founded on all kinds of ill- 
considered principles, or, on none at all. Some of these 


237 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


are weak and meaningless, and usually “catchy’’, as all 
superficial things are apt to be, as when the Rev. Mark 
Guy Pearse poetizes on “The Creed of Creeds”’: 


“They questioned my theology; 
And talked of modern thought; 
Bade me recite a dozen creeds— 
I could mot as I ought. 
‘I’ve but one creed’, I answer made, 
And do not want another; 
I know I’ve passed from death to life 
Because I love my brother.” 


And what do we get at that rate? The great mass of 
people have no large or satisfactory view of the way 
of salvation. Ideas of God, of sin, of the ground of hope 
in Christ, etc., are meager. An un-Scriptural construction. 
of the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God has captivated 
general opinion with its serious peril to eternal destiny, 
and thus Christianity has been supplanted by a species 
of paganism. Joining of the church has largely become 
a formal ceremony, or at best, it is done on mere 
sentimental impulse. Irreverence and flippancy, and the 
“plague of jocularity’’ are common, even in the sacred 
desk. Trifling with holy things, and blasphemy in certain 
directions is the sin of many, of ministers included. 

This prevalent ignorance causes many to fall a prey 
to rank errorists who eloquently advocate their doctrines, 
and these find ready entrance into the existing vacuums. 
Also, some choice souls with truly spiritual experiences 
and earnestness of purpose are easily led away from 
confessional churches, because of the warmth and fervor 
in some pietistic circles which make an arbitrary measure 
of experience and sometimes mere loquacity the evidence 
of true religion. And as for the ministry, it either holds 
its beliefs of the Standards as a matter of form, or it 


238 


THE PROGRAM OF REFORMED CHURCHES 


stands on an individualistic platform of its own. Many 
delight to skate along the thin edge of ecclesiastical safety. 
Under these influences many seminaries indeed make 
theological study a matter of scientific method, but they 
lean strongly in the anti-confessional direction. Hence, 
a sort of evangelical rationalism forms the groundwork 
of Modern Theology. And of course this is reflected in 
the religious press, which together with a weak pulpit 
goes to form general public opinion in matters of 
religion. 

Is there any Christianity? Yes; there must be, for 
God always had His own. But what there is, does not 
advance the well-being of the Church. Passing some 
forms which are professedly advanced in type, even the 
true are infected with the evils. A generally unsound 
basis underlies the American type of religion which can 
be characterized as one that rests on the practical with 
a pietistic base. It is one in which knowledge is at a 
minimum, Christian experience being the prime requisite. 
This pietistic cast is derived from the influence of. 
Methodism which is in evidence in all evangelistic cam- 
paigns. But as was the case with the Pietism of Germany, 
so the old time fervor, excellent in its way, is wearing 
off. Formalism begins to assert itself and Christian 
practices, no longer urged by spiritual sensitiveness, is 
bound to lapse as well, of which there are evidences 
enough. 

It is interesting to note that our American type of 
Christianity is similar to a movement which obtained 
in The Netherlands in the beginning of the nineteenth 
century, and which goes by the name of The Reéveil. 
This was a “powerful spiritual movement, but from the 
start manifested an anti-confessional basis. It rested on 
a general Christian foundation and was characterized by 


239 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


its individualistic, aristocratic, methodistic and philan- 
thropical cast” (Bavinck, Dogm. I. 131). As a move- 
ment it was not organized, and its good influences were 
soon absorbed in the National Church, making possible 
the new assertion of orthodoxy which brought out the 
Christian Reformed Church in The Netherlands as well 
as profoundly influencing the State Church. 

An outstanding result of the religiousness of the 
American type is the advocacy of Church Union. In 
itself this is a desirable thing. As far as this sentiment 
consists in cultivating sympathetic regard for each other 
and cooperation on general lines, there can be only praise. 
But this alone cannot form the basis of the union of 
Christendom. Organic union between really diverse 
elements cannot be tolerated if we have regard for the 
integrity of the truth. It is requiring far too much to 
sacrifice this on the altar of love. Even God does not 
discount truth in favor of love. And for us to do this 
is treason against Reformed principles, and from that 
point of view, treason against the Word. 

And there is declension in church life. While real 
Christianity has all along been advocated, its present 
mystico-practical type has had in it the seeds of 
deterioration. Dr. N. M. Steffens wrote to me Dec. 11, 
1900: ‘People do not see the danger of the coming 
deluge of modern theology and its dire results. They 
do not know how deeply we are already sunk.’’ There 
is much lifeless preaching; much of it consists of ‘“‘giving 
talks”; there are dead churches enough, run down 
attendance, loose regard for the sacredness of church- 
membership, neglect of the sacraments. These run-down 
conditions have to be remedied by means of the extra- 
regular method of the revivalist: this is the introduction 
of a sort of spiritual intoxication with its inevitable — 

240 


THE PROGRAM OF REFORMED CHURCHES 


reaction. It is a heroic remedy demanded by the anemic 
condition of the ecclesiastical patient. But the old way 
of building up the system with the meat of the Word 
was much better. It has always been the fact that where 
instruction in the truth has been given, there the modern 
way of a mechanical revivalism was unnecessary. ; 

In conclusion, an answer to the question, What must 
be done about it? What are we to understand by religious 
progressiveness? Let it be noted that the Synod of 
Dordt did not presume to have spoken the last word 
on the construction of the contents of Scripture. They 
too believed in progress but not in the modern sense. 
To-day progressiveness amounts to a neglect, if not 
denial, of fundamentals, and hence it is a building up 
on an entirely new basis. The material and spiritual 
sciences, as psychology, etc., are today resting on a 
subjective basis, i.e. on a purely human estimate of 
things, and this applied to theology is bound to affect 
it destructively. The Reformed hold that stagnation and 
deterioration have set in, a century or two after the 
Reformation for that very reason, and hence it ts 
perfectly natural that the Reformed must return to the 
point where the proper development of the truth was 
left off. We must continue to build on the foundation 
of a strict acceptance of Divine revelation as the only 
reliable objective basis of spiritual knowledge, together 
with a recognition of humanity as divided into the 
regenerate and unregenerate parts, whence the correct 
estimate of the facts of revelation can only be received 
at the hands of the former. This conception of things 
is fatal to Modernist Theology. 

We need, then, a fresh conception of the principles on 
which the Reformed Churches are based; in other words, 
the rock-ribbed foundations of true religion which an 

241 


THE. REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


objective revelation authoritatively furnishes. Only this 
form will be found able to hold its own against the 
attacks of an unbelieving science and philosophy, heavily 
armed and well-organized as they always have been. We 
are safe only when we stand on our own proper ground, 
and when we do not attempt to defend ourselves on their 
premises. Kuyper has explained this at length in his 
most admirable Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology. He 
there takes the only stand Christianity can successfully 
take, namely, on the basis of revelation as deposited in 
Holy Scripture, and this deposit reflected in the conscious- 
ness of the believing Church. This can be clear and 
reliable only then, when objective truth is intellectually 
grasped by the subject of saving faith. The problems 
of life and existence are not solved by mystic feelings: 
such solution is not their province; strictly speaking, they 
tell us nothing in the realm of knowledge. But questions 
of fact must be answered through the faculties of per- 
ceiving and knowing: on this, feeling and consciousness 
will rest assured and secured . Now Divine revelation 
is the only source of such knowledge, and this must be 
pondered and assimilated. This applies not only to 
theology, but as well to the entire realm of knowledge 
which is all comprehended in God’s universe. Even our 
psychology must be based on principles derived from 
Scripture—something which our colleges hardly pretend 
to do, and may even ridicule. All education should reckon 
with the beginnings of wisdom which are found in the 
book Divine and which are bound up with the fear of 
the Lord. 

What are particular means to these ends? In main- 
taining and developing what is specifically Reformed, 
one naturally thinks of the theological seminaries. What 
a tremendous responsibility and opportunity professors 

242 


THE PROGRAM OF REFORMED CHURCHES 


of theology have, not only for their own Church, but 
even for the enlightenment of the world! They serve the 
Queen of Sciences! Her light illumines the entire realm 
of knowledge! These professors deal with the scientific 
examination and construction of these very problems 
which underlie all life and existence. How jealous we 
may well be that these professors magnify their office! 
And the Church must scrupulously see to it that she 
chooses men to that office of sterling qualifications and 
of unquestioned loyalty to, and enthusiasm for the 
Standards. It would be nothing short of a calamity to 
choose them for the sake of expediency, or as a compli- 
ment, for a reward, or for any other motive as frivolous. 

Next we point to the pulpit, in which the carefully 
trained ministry comes in contact with the people, who 
are there instructed in the things which pertain to exist- 
ence in its deepest purposes and values, for this life and 
the life to come. They are “ambassadors on behalf of 
Christ, as though God were entreating” by them. They 
must bring the authoritative message from the Majesty 
on High: in the Word are their instructions ; these cannot 
be examined and brought out too well! The Minister 
of the Word is also its expert teacher. In former times, 
and to-day in some circles, this aspect of the minister's 
work is still held in honor, namely, to conduct classes 
which he instructs in the catechisms of the Church. 
Wherever this has been done, in Scotland, in The 
Netherlands, and elsewhere, men and women mighty in 
the Scriptures, strong in faith and in character have been 
found, who were pillars in the Church of God. 

The ‘hee press is another power for good: it 
reaches the entire denomination where its voice can 
leisurely be heard. “De Heraut” in The Netherlands 
under its very able editor, Dr. A. Kuyper, was in his 

243 


THE REFORMED PRINCIPLE OF AUTHORITY 


lifetime a most conspicuous example of tremendous for- 
mative influence. It almost created a new devotion to 
the scientific study of Reformed theology with the laity 
educated by it to appreciate it. If the denominational 
press anywhere does not speak out loyally to its own 
cause, deterioration is bound to set in. If we believe 
at all in our cause we have no reason to be ashamed of 
its presentation: silence on its part is dereliction of duty, 
if not, possibly, treachery in one’s own camp. In the 
swirl of so many winds of doctrine blowing in all 
directions, it is of peculiar importance to have fearless 
and staunch defenders of the faith. 

We have spoken of the program of Reformed Churches 
in a way which applies more or less to any Protestant 
Church which stands resolutely upon the Scriptures as 
over against Modernism. To be sure, all that has been 
said applies specifically to Reformed and Presbyterian 
Churches of that name. And as having the latter in 
mind, it all applies to that view of the doctrines of the 
Bible which goes under the name of Calvinism. Kuyper 
was a most ardent defender of this form of Protestant 
belief. Having his own country in mind, he said this 
of it: “Calvinism has not only a future among the Dutch 
orthodox: it has the future. Everything else crumbles 
and melts away. Theologically there is much a-wearying 
of oneself all around us, and there is much bootless 
toiling before people, because Calvinism is too much for 
the majority of them. But just because it is such a power, 
it captures the spirits and will not let them off” (De 
Heraut, No. 1011). Possibly some of my readers may 
not take kindly to Calvinism, so called ; however, the words 
of Kuyper just quoted apply equally well to the Reformed 
principle of authority. It is the only one which can 
permanently satisfy mind and heart. It has a vitality 

244 , 


THE PROGRAM OF REFORMED CHURCHES 


which no amount of negation can kill. With the earnest 
conviction, with the perfect consecration, with the in- 
domitable energy of William of Orange, who realized 
its value for his own heart and for the salvation of his 
people, it would be well for all, with the fine enthusiasm 
which eminently befits loyalty to Divine truth, to show 
in our lives and exemplify in our deeds, the faithful, 
forceful motto of this same William of Orange: 


“I WILL MAINTAIN!” 


245 


aa. 
y 


es Pa he 
Bis Ba? an 
i se 


> 





A CORRECTION 


In the interest of historical accuracy the indulgent 
reader will please note that the date 1833 on page 7 line 9 
should read: 1863. 














